The Effect of Perceived Unfairness and Negative Emotions On Workplace Behavior

THE EFFECT OF PERCEIVED UNFAIRNESS AND NEGATIVE EMOTIONS
ON WORKPLACE BEHAVIOR
A thesis submitted to the

Kent State University College
of Education, Health, and Human Services
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Science
By
Yu Ya Ling
December 2013
Thesis written by
Yu Ya Ling
B.S., Chia Nan University of Pharmacy & Science, 2009
M.S., Kent State University, 2013
Approved by
__________________________, Director, Master's Thesis Committee

Ning-Kuang Chuang
__________________________, Member, Master's Thesis Committee
Barbara M. Scheule
__________________________, Member, Master's Thesis Committee
Aviad Israeli
Accepted by
__________________________, Director, School of Foundations, Leadership
Shawn M. Fitzgerald
and Administration
__________________________, Dean, College of Education, Health and Human Services
Daniel F. Mahony
ii
Yu Ya Ling, M.S. December, 2013
Hospitality Management
THE EFFECT OF PERCEIVED UNFAIRNESS AND NEGATIVE EMOTIONS ON

WORKPLACE BEHAVIOR (166 pp.)
Director of Thesis: Ning-Kuang Chuang, Ph.D.
The purpose of this research is to investigate how interactional justice, equity
sensitivity, leader member exchange, workplace envy and workplace frustration influence
workplace deviant behavior and turnover intentions. The survey was distributed to
American hotels and Taiwanese hotels. The results show that interactional justice,
equity sensitivity, leader member exchange, workplace envy and workplace frustration
can predict workplace deviant behavior and turnover intention. The contribution is that
management could development good interpersonal relationship and create healthy
working environments for employees.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my committee members, Barbara Scheule and Aviad Israeli for
their valuable suggestions and support.
I extend my sincerest gratitude to my thesis advisor, Dr. Ning-Kuang Chuang.
could not imagine having such a great advisor for my graduate study.
to complete this research by myself without her help and guidance.
It was impossible
Dr. Chuang's
patience and encouragement motivated and empowered me to concentrate on this

research.
In addition, she provided assistance throughout the process (e.g., data analysis,
discussed results, and provided journals).

than what I thought I could do.
She also aroused my potential to go farther
Her professional knowledge base was critical to making
my research study a success.

I would also like to thank my family, my friends, and all of the participants in this
research project.
Without their help with data distribution and collection it would be
difficult to complete this study.
Their never-ending support and encouragement is what
motivates and empowers me to keep me going.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
II. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................. 7
Theoretical Models ..................................................................................................... 7
Social Exchange Theory (SET)........................................................................... 7
Equity Theory ..................................................................................................... 9
Interactional Justice ...................................................................................................11
LeaderMember Exchange (LMX)......................................................................... 14
Workplace Envy ........................................................................................................ 17
Workplace Deviant Behavior .................................................................................... 21
Turnover Intention .................................................................................................... 24
Labor Law ................................................................................................................. 27
Research Propositions ............................................................................................... 27
III. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 29
Human Subject Review............................................................................................. 29
Sample....................................................................................................................... 29
Instrument Design ..................................................................................................... 30
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................ 34
IV. RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 36
Demographic Characteristics .................................................................................... 36
Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................................. 38
Correlations ............................................................................................................... 40
Simple Linear Regression ......................................................................................... 42
Multiple Regression Analysis ................................................................................... 56
Independent Samples t test........................................................................................ 62
ANOVA .................................................................................................................... 67
Open-Ended Questions ............................................................................................. 78
iv
V. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................. 82
Fairness and LMX..................................................................................................... 83
Fairness, LMX, and Negative Emotions ................................................................... 85
Negative Emotions and Negative Behaviors ............................................................ 89
Fairness, LMX, Negative Emotions, and Negative Behaviors ................................. 90
Gender Differences ................................................................................................... 91
Background Differences ........................................................................................... 92
Job Position ....................................................................................................... 92
Job Status .......................................................................................................... 93
Geographic Location ......................................................................................... 94
Educational Background ................................................................................... 94
Departments ...................................................................................................... 95
Perception of Pay .............................................................................................. 97
Comparison between Taiwan and America ............................................................... 98
Similarities between Countries ......................................................................... 98
Difference between Countries......................................................................... 100
Managerial Implications ......................................................................................... 103
Limitations .............................................................................................................. 109
Future Research ....................................................................................................... 111
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 113
APPENDIX A. CONSENT FORM IN CHINESE ..........................................................114
APPENDIX B. CONSENT FORM IN ENGLISH ..........................................................116
APPENDIX C. QUESTIONNAIRE IN CHINESE .........................................................118
APPENDIX D. QUESTIONNAIRE IN ENGLISH ....................................................... 124
REFERENCE.................................................................................................................. 131
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1. Conceptual framework .................................................................................................. 28

2. Coefficients of determination among variables (For American data) .......................... 56
3. Coefficients of determination among variables (For Taiwanese data) ......................... 56
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1. Demographic Characteristics of Taiwanese and American Hotel Employees ............. 37

2. Summary Scale Statistics of Seven Variables among Taiwanese and American Hotel
Employees ......................................................................................................................... 39
3. Countries Comparisons on Workplace Deviant Behavior Scale .................................. 40
4. Pearson Correlations among Variables among Taiwanese Hotel Industry (N = 493) .. 41
5. Pearson Correlations among Variables among American Hotel Industry (N = 135) ... 42
6. Summary of Simple Linear Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Interactional
Justice on LMX for Taiwanese Sample ............................................................................ 43
Justice on LMX for American Sample ............................................................................. 43
8. Summary of Simple Linear Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Equity
Sensitivity on LeaderMember Exchange for Taiwanese sample .................................... 44
9. Summary of Simple Linear Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Equity
Sensitivity on LeaderMember Exchange for American Sample..................................... 45
Justice on Workplace Envy for Taiwanese Sample .......................................................... 45
Justice on Workplace Envy for American Sample ........................................................... 46
Justice on Workplace Frustration for Taiwanese Sample ................................................. 47
Justice on Workplace Frustration for American Sample .................................................. 47
14. Summary of Simple Linear Regression Analysis for the Prediction of
LeaderMember Exchange (LMX) on Workplace Envy for Taiwanese Sample ............. 48
vii

LeaderMember Exchange (LMX) on Workplace Envy for American Sample .............. 48
LeaderMember Exchange (LMX) on Workplace Frustration for Taiwanese Sample .... 49
LeaderMember Exchange (LMX) on Workplace Frustration for American Sample ..... 50
18. Summary of Simple Linear Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Workplace
Envy on Workplace Deviant Behavior for Taiwanese Sample ........................................ 51
Envy on Workplace Deviant Behavior for American Sample .......................................... 51
Frustration on Workplace Deviant Behavior for Taiwanese Sample ............................... 52
Frustration on Workplace Deviant Behavior for American Sample ................................. 53
Envy on Turnover Intention for Taiwanese Sample ......................................................... 53
Envy on Turnover Intention for American Sample .......................................................... 54
Frustration on Turnover Intention for Taiwanese Sample ................................................ 55
Frustration on Turnover Intention for American Sample ................................................. 55
26. The Predictors of Deviant Behavior for the Taiwanese Sample ................................. 58
27. The Predictors of Deviant Behavior for the American Sample .................................. 59
28. The Predictors of Turnover Intention for the Taiwanese Sample ............................... 60
29. The Predictors of Turnover Intention for the American Sample ................................ 62
30. Gender Differences on Seven Variables of Taiwanese Hotel Employees .................. 62
viii
31. Gender Differences on Seven Variables of American Hotel Employees ................... 63

32. Working Status Differences on Seven Variables of Taiwanese Hotel Employees ..... 64
33. Working Status Differences on Seven Variables of American Hotel Employees ...... 65
34. Job Positions Differences on Seven Variables of Taiwanese Hotel Employees ........ 65
35. Job Positions Differences on Seven Variables of American Hotel Employees .......... 66
36. Locations Differences on Seven Variables of Hotel Employees ................................ 67
37. ANOVA Results of Educational Level Differences on Seven Variables of Taiwanese
Hotel Employees ............................................................................................................... 68
38. ANOVA Results of Educational Level Differences on Seven Variables of American
Hotel Employees ............................................................................................................... 70
39. ANOVA Results of Department Differences on Seven Variables of Taiwanese Hotel
Employees ......................................................................................................................... 71
40. ANOVA Results of Department Differences on Seven Variables of American Hotel
Employees ......................................................................................................................... 72
41. ANOVA Results of Marital Status Differences on Seven Variables of Taiwanese
Hotel Employees ............................................................................................................... 74
42. ANOVA Results of Marital Status Differences on Seven Variables of American Hotel
Employees ......................................................................................................................... 75
43. ANOVA Results of Perception of Salary Differences on Seven Variables of
Taiwanese Hotel Employees ............................................................................................. 76
44. ANOVA Results of Perception of Salary Differences on Seven Variables of
American Hotel Employees .............................................................................................. 78
45. Summary Table of Participants' Responses to Open-Ended Questions ...................... 79
ix
CHAPTER
INTRODUCTION
High employee turnover rates are the prevalent behaviors in the hotel industry
(Carbery, Garavan, O'Brien, & McDonnell, 2003; Chalkiti & Sigala, 2010; Davidson,
Timo, & Wang, 2010; Hinkin & Tracey, 2000; Kim, Lee & Carlson, 2010). Many
employees incline to leave their jobs due to seasonal fluctuations, part-time employees,
work overload, promotional opportunity, and working condition (Daileyl & Kirk, 1992;
Iverson & Deery, 1997; Yang, Wan, & Fu, 2012).
However, not all employees may
intend to leave their job, instead they may engage in workplace deviance (e.g. often late
for work and reduce work engagement).
Hotel industry is different from other industry
because of the intangible services and intensive people interaction (Ma & Qu, 2011).
Front desk employees have face-to-face with customers and satisfy customers need.
As
a result, in order to provide high quality service, management may develop the means to
prevent deviant behavior and lower turnover from happening in the hotel industry.
Employees desire to have a happy and pleasant quality of working life with support
from their supervisors, rewards for their efforts, and good relationships with their
coworkers. Under such conditions, most workers feel motivated to perform well in their
jobs (Gerstner & Day, 1997). Previous research has shown that good quality of
relationships between supervisors and employees can reduce employees' job-related
pressure (Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser, 1999), increase job satisfaction and good job
1
performance (Gerstner & Day, 1997). The advantages of a good quality relationships
between employees and supervisors is well evidenced (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Duchon,
Green, & Taber, 1986; Fisk & Friesen, 2012; Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005;
Wayne & Green, 1993); however, the effect of poor quality of the relationships has not
been comprehensively explored. Poor relationships in the workplace may be harmful to
a company, particularly firms in the service industry (Uen, Wu, Teng, & Liu, 2012).
Feeling of undervalued, poor support derive from supervisors may trigger employees'
intention to leave the organization (Graen, Liden, & Hoel, 1982) and seldom put in extra
effort or voluntarily help their coworkers (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994).
This, in
turn, may lead to a reduction in work-related contribution and devotion (Kim et al., 2010).
Supervisors may play a key role in creating a harmonious working atmosphere for all
involved.
Meeting and balancing the psychological demands of employees regarding
perceptions of fairness is a key role of supervisors.
Baumeister and Leary (1995)
pointed out that maintaining a good mood and meeting the psychological demands may
help employees in their job performance. Conversely, when employees do not perceive
equitable treatment from their supervisors, employees often make less of a contribution,
and feel unsatisfied. This lack of satisfaction is often reflected in service failures on the
part of employees (Rad & Yarmohammadian, 2006). A reasonable assumption can be
made that a perception of inequitable treatment from supervisors affects how employees
treat their coworkers and customers (Forret & Love, 2008). Considerable research has
been conducted regarding the positive influence of fairness in relationships between
supervisors and employees (Murphy, Wayne, Liden, & Erdogan, 2003; Al-Zu'bi, 2010;
Ladebo, Awotunde, & AbulSalaam-Saghir, 2008); however, little research has gone into
evaluating the influence of a lack of fairness within these relationships (Barling & Philips,
1993; Coyle-Shapiro, Kessler, & Purcell, 2004).
All employees have different
viewpoints of fairness, and may produce negative emotions (e.g., envy or frustration).
Envy among employees is commonly encountered in the workplace, and has been
recognized as a powerful force shaping the working environment (Dogan & Vecchio,
2001). The number of opportunities in hospitality for career advancement are severely
limited, such that employees are particularly sensitive to the awarding of promotions
(Cohen-Charash & Muller, 2007). Employees could compare their performance and
subsequent treatment with those of their coworkers and often produce envy or frustration
that influences their job performance and work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008;
Young & Corsun, 2009).
Employees with negative emotions are more prone to lower
self-esteem and are less motivated toward their work because they receive less
supervisors' affirmation or supports (Nandedkar & Deshpande, 2012; Vecchio, 2000).
Unfortunately, current management efforts tend to focus on eliciting positive emotions
rather than dealing with negative emotions (Bedeian, 1995; Vecchio, 1995). As a result,
problems caused by negative emotions (e.g., envy, frustration and anger) remain
unresolved despite the fact that they are prevalent in every workplace. The negative
emotion may lead to retaliatory behaviors (Stecher & Rosse, 2005). Once employees
were allowed to undergo and build up their negative emotion, the harm could destroy
their ability to work collaboratively (Dogan & Vecchio, 2001). Thus, negative emotion
are more likely to make employees engage in workplace deviant behaviors

(Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007; Shahzad & Mahmood, 2012) and have high turnover
intention (Yang et al., 2012) in the working environment.
Workplace Deviant Behavior (WDB) is a negative behavior with potential
detrimental influence to employees, business owners, and organizations (Robinson &
Bennett, 1997). The influences of negative behavior include financial and social costs
for organizations which have been reported in the current news and trade journals
(Harper, 1990).
It is still a serious problem existing in the workplace nowadays (Bolin
& Heatherly, 2001).
Deviant behaviors may accompany with negative work attitude,
such as job satisfaction and reduced working enthusiasm.
In the hospitality industry, if
employees lose working enthusiasm, it may influence efficiency and quality of work
(Manion, 2000). They intentionally serve slower than they could have served, thus
customers may feel dissatisfied with service.
In order to avoid service failure, it is
important to discourage deviant behavior from occurring during a customer encounter.

However, employees react to poor supervisoremployee relationship differently and at
different levels.
Some employees produce deviance and other employees intend to
leave the organization.

Turnover is costly for the company (Waldman, Kelly, Arora, & Smith, 2004) and
wastes a great amount of human resources (Yang et al., 2012) because it is not easy to
recruit, train, and retain good employees.
Hinkin and Tracey (2000) suggested "A
turnover cost of $6000 USD equates to about $3 USD per hour in annual wages for an
hourly position" (p. 21).
In the hospitality industry, employees have higher turnover
intention due to job dissatisfaction (Trevor, 2001; Lam & Chen, 2012) and unfair
treatment (Muzumdar, 2012). Turnover may destroy the quality of customer service
which is related to revenue and profitability (Hinkin & Tracey, 2008).
Hotel owners use
retention strategies that focus on retaining employees, but the turnover rate still remains
high (Yang et al., 2012).
To sum up, this research explores the "dark" aspects and negative impacts of the
relationship between supervisors and employees, such as negative behavioral and
psychological outcomes.
The relationship between supervisors and employees is
important because they spent more time in the workplace than at home.
If they do not
get along well, they may burnout easily (Huang, Chan, Lam, & Nan, 2010).
In addition,
employees have different viewpoints of justice. To keep employees positive and happy,
and to exceed expected standard is equitable treatment. Employees compare and
compete in the workplace, both of which will amplify their emotion toward unequal
resources or treatment (Tai, Narayanan, & Mcallister, 2012). Thus, if employees
perceive unfair treatment, they may produce varying emotions.
Once their envy
emotion build up to a harmful level, they may engender deviant behavior in the
workplace or tend to quit the job.
The purposes of this research are to explore (1) if
perceive fairness would improve supervisors and employee's relationship; (2) if equity
sensitivity could predict supervisors and employee's relationship; (3) if supervisors and
employee's relationship could predict negative emotion; (4) if negative emotion could
predict negative behavior; (5) if employees perceive unfairness, produce envy and
frustration emotions would make them engage in workplace deviant behavior and have
turnover intention; (6) if demographic characteristics and background information would

influence fairness, equity sensitivity, supervisors' and employees' relationship, negative
emotion, workplace deviance, and turnover intention.
CHAPTER
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter first introduces social exchange theory and equity theory, and concepts
underlying the objective of this research. Next, the literature related to the following
variables will be discussed: (1) interactional justice, (2) equity sensitivity, (3)
leadermember exchange (LMX), (4) workplace envy, (5) workplace frustration, (6)
workplace deviant behavior, and (7) turnover intention. Finally, the conceptual
framework and research purpose are proposed.
Theoretical Models
One of the main objective of this research is to examining factors (e.g., interactional
justice, equity sensitivity, LMX, and negative emotion) that influence workplace deviant
behavior and turnover intention. Understanding the effects of interpersonal relationship
in the workplace is better achieved by gaining in-depth knowledge of two theories
underlying this branch of literature in the hospitality. These include: social exchange
theory (SET) (Blau, 1964) and equity theory (Adam, 1963).
Social Exchange Theory (SET)
Blau (1964) first defined the concept of social exchange theory (SET), which entails
vague obligations, such as when one party does another party a favor, and the first party
expects repayment similar to economic exchange through rewards and costs (Blau,
1964). Employees choose particular behaviors according to the norms of reciprocity
7
and a sense of gratitude to their organizations. Hence, when employees believe that
their relationship with their supervisors is good, they may feel an obligation to work
harder and produce desirable organizational outcomes.
In terms of SET (Blau, 1964), hotel employees believed that it is their duty to
provide a range of services to satisfy the needs of their customers.
If hotel management
treat their employees better than the norm, employees may do better work.
This would
manifest itself in good service, thereby establishing a good relationship with customers
(Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen 2002; Gouldner, 1960). According to SET, various
predictions can be made about interactional justice (Cropanzano et al., 2002), such as
interaction between supervisors and employees in the workplace. Relationships based
on social exchange at work are based on a sense of reciprocity and perceptions of balance
over time (Chambel & Sobral, 2011). Employees who feel that their interaction with
supervisors is fair are likely to contribute more with regard to helping behavior
(Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000; Tang & Tang, 2012).
A handful of research have used SET to interpret different phenomenon related to
organizational citizenship behavior (Kacmar, Bachrach, Harris, & Noble, 2012; Settoon
& Mossholder, 2002; Tang & Tang, 2012; Ma & Wu, 2011) and supervisoremployee
relationship (El Akremi, Vandenberghe, & Camerman, 2010; Xu, Huang, Lam, & Miao,
2012). Supervisors who are trusted by employees may inspire employees to exceed
expectations with regard to the efforts they make (Settoon & Mossholder, 2002; Kacmar
et al., 2012). On the contrary, abusive supervisors may lead to poor relationship with
their employees (Xu et al., 2012).
In addition, organizations that provide benefits, such
as training through human resource practices can inspire employees to reciprocate with a
positive attitude toward their work (Chambel & Sobral, 2011; Tang & Tang, 2012).
Training is perceived as organizational support and an investment in employees (Wayne,
Shore, & Liden, 1997).
Taylor, Bedeian, and Kluemper (2012) described how negative
reciprocity associated with workplace incivility (e.g., impolite or insulting behavior to

coworkers) may also influence the citizenship behavior.
Ma and Qu (2011) listed that there are three types of social exchanges, such as
leader member exchange (LMEX), coworker exchange (COEX), and customer employee
exchange (CEEX) in the hotel industry.
LMEX is regarding the relationship between
supervisors and employees. With regard to COEX, employees who are treated well by
their coworkers are willing to reciprocate by helping their coworkers (Ladd & Henry,
2000; Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996). Regarding CEEX, customers behavioral and
emotional reactions of customers may also influence the perspective and service
performance of employees (Lawler, 2001).
In contrast, this research examined how the
relationship between supervisors and employees (LMEX) influences the relationship

among coworkers (COEX).
If the supervisor does not treat the employees well,
employee performance will suffer and result in lower service quality and reduced
customer satisfaction.
The most important mission for hotel employees is serving the
customer, and service of high quality relies heavily on cooperative efforts of all
employees (Lam & Chen, 2012; Ma & Qu, 2011).
Equity Theory
Adams (1963, 1965) first defined equity theory as a set of principles which draws
10
from exchange, dissonance, and social comparison theories in making predictions about
how individuals manage their relationships with others (as cited in Huseman, Hatfield,
& Miles, 1987, p. 222).
Oliver (1997) defined equity as a fairness, rightness, or
deservingness comparison to other entities, whether real or imaginary, individual or

collective, person or non-person" (p. 196).
Equity theory is associated with social
exchange theory (Adams, 1963, 1965) and they both "emphasize the reciprocal nature of
workplace relationship" (Deluga, 1994, p. 318).
Thus, employees who perform well
may be rewarded by supervisors and form good impression, while employees who fail to
perform well may receive instructions regarding how to improve. Once employee make
improvement, they may still have chance to gain reward from supervisors.
Previous research has used equity theory to predict organizational outcomes, such as
job satisfaction (Dittrich & Carrell, 1979), pay satisfaction (Goodman, 1974), citizenship
behavior (Deluga, 1994), emotion (Sprecher, 1986), and turnover intention (Telly, French,
& Scott, 1971). Employees believe that equal work deserves equal pay.
If an
employee discovers that another employee receives a higher salary for the same work, the
lesser-paid employee would be dissatisfied, which could lead to a variety of negative
outcomes. Employees can not be satisfied when they perceive a lack of fairness in
working conditions, benefits, payment, or treatment, in which case they may reduce their
work output, seek adversarial disputes, or even leave the job.
Recent hospitality research use equity theory on customer service (Kwon & Jang,
2012) and customer loyalty (Chen & Myagmarsuren, 2011; Raimondo, Miceli, &
Costabile, 2008). Olsen and Johnson (2003) introduced how equity theory is related to
11
marketing with regard to the concept of reciprocity in the relationship between customers
and employees. An example of this sort of exchange would be how employees deal
with service failure (e.g., make up customers' loss) in order to gain customer loyalty.
Customers care about how much they lost versus how much they gain (Ashley, Noble,
Donthu, & Lemon, 2011). Perceived equity "is a key psychological reaction to the
value that a service company provides" (Olsen & Johnson, 2003, p. 184). In the other
words, employees are empowered to compensate when encounter service failure, they
work harder for customers with whom they have a closer relationship can be viewed as a
lack of equity among customers. Thus, to keep equity relationship may increase the
customer satisfaction and repetitive purchase.
The equity concept is also important for the relationship between supervisors and
employees and the relationship between employees and coworkers in the workplace
(Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984). Employee with low quality of LMX may be
more sensitive to unfairness practice (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1994). However, Deluga (1994)
showed that employees perceived fairness is less influenced by the quality of the
relationship with their supervisors, but it would still influence the citizenship behavior.
This issue of whether equity is related to the relationships between supervisors and
employees is worthy of further discussion.
Interactional Justice
Interactional justice comprises both interpersonal justice, which deals with dignity
and respect towards employee by their supervisors and employees, and informational
justice, which deals with the factors of communication between the supervisors and
12
employees (Muzumdar, 2012, p. 3). The other two organizational justices are
distributive justice and procedural justice (Greenberg, 1990; Konovsky, 2000).
Distributive justice is concerned with the perceived process of fairness evaluating
fairness and procedural justice is concerned with procedures, such as appraisals
(Greenberg, 1990). Organizational justice can increase employee satisfaction (Al-Zu'bi,
2010; Ladebo et al., 2008), extra-role performance (Hofmann, Morgeson, & Gerras,
2003), citizenship behavior (Brockner, Chen, Mannix, Leung, & Skarlicki, 2000), role
definitions (Ando & Matsuda, 2010), productivity (Viswesvaran & Ones, 2002),
teamwork quality (Dayan & Di Benedetto, 2008), and reduce withdrawal behavior
(Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Nadiri
& Tanova, 2010), and turnover decision (Muzumdar, 2012) in the workplace. Both
distributive justice and procedural justice do not concern supervisor and employee
relationship, but interactional justice refers to the quality of working life (Mikula, Petri,
& Tanzer, 1990). Hence, it is understandable that this research will focus on the
interactional justice.
Interactional justice in the work environment is based on social exchange theory
(SET) and the norms of reciprocity (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).
Ladebo et al. (2008)
used SET to describe working relationships in which employees expect the supervisors to
be equitable, honest, polite, and truthful. Once the employees expectations are fulfilled,
they are more likely to express strong commitment to the firms values and goals
(Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001).
Interactional justice may be a
key factor in supervisors treatment of employees (Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen, 2002;
13
Colquitt et al., 2001; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Robinson, 1996).
In the other words,
employees may trust their supervisors is fair to everyone and they are more likely get
close with their supervisors (Lam, Loi, & Leong, 2011). Previous empirical studies
have found that when employees experience inequity, especially from their supervisors,
on the daily basis, can result in psychological pressure, and even aggressive behavior
(Judge, Scott, & Ilies, 2006; Loi, Yang, & Diefendorff, 2009; Mikula, Petri, & Tanzer,
1990). Aggressive behavior is a kind of workplace illness and it can grow quickly
(Aitkinson, 2000; LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002; Namie, 2003).
Ladebo et al. (2008)
demonstrated that perceived unfairness from the supervisor could be appraised as

negative environmental stimuli that will elicit negative emotion (p. 208).
Negative
attitudes or aggressive behavior can lead to high turnover rates when the interactional
relationship with supervisors is poor (Muzumdar, 2012). On the contrary, strong
interactional justice can alleviate employee worries, anger, burnout, and irritation (Lam &
Chen, 2012).
Although recent research extensively studied overall organizational justice (McCain,
Tsai, & Bellino, 2010; Al-Zu'bi, 2010), little research has focused specifically on
interactional justice in hospitality industry. Hospitality research regarding fairness
stream on customer service (e.g., service failure) (Kwon & Jang, 2012; McQuilken,
McDonald, & Cocino, 2013; Namkung, Jang, Almanza, & Ismail, 2009).
Customers
usually consider whether the way that employees handle them is fair, and this may
influence their decision to return. When customers are compensated for service failure,
they may consider fairness more for who has close relationship with the hotel (Kwon &
14
Jang, 2012). Employee effort is particularly important when facing service failure.
Once customers think that the compensation they received is unfair, it may lead to
detrimental outcomes, such as defection or negative word of mouth. Supervisors play
an indispensable role in the hospitality industry by communicating with employees,
thereby avoiding counterproductive efforts and maintaining high standards of service
quality (Lam et al., 2011).
If employees do not perceive the equitable interaction or
treatment, their negative emotions are more likely to influence the service encounter
(Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978).
LeaderMember Exchange (LMX)
LeaderMember Exchange (LMX) is defined as the quality of the working
relationship between employees and their supervisors (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975).
The high quality of LMX relationship is based on mutual trust, respect, and obligation
between supervisors and employees (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Medler-Liraz & Kark,
2012). Employees who experience high quality of LMX are more likely than those in
poor relationship to be assigned important tasks and receive training opportunities,
sufficient resources, information, support or protection from management (Liden, Wayne
& Sparrowe, 2000; Scandura, Graen, & Novak, 1986). As a result, employees who
experience high quality of LMX are more likely to enjoy their work and positive working
environment (Feldman, 1986; Fisk & Friesen, 2012; Wang et al., 2005).
Previous research in this field has focused on the positive outcome relationship
between LMX and several work-related variables mostly are positive, such as
performance (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Susskind, Kacmar, & Borchgrevink, 2007),
15
satisfaction (Duchon et al., 1986; Fisk & Friesen, 2012), and organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB) (Wang et al., 2005; Wayne & Green, 1993; Xu et al., 2012).
Supervisors seek to identify and delegate different kinds of tasks according to the ability
of employees, so they could complete successfully.
Likewise, employees strive to apply
their specific skill sets to perform their jobs in a satisfactory manner (Liden, Erdogan,
Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2006) and work with other employees as a cohesive team to meet
management' and organizations' expectations (Naidoo, Scherbaum, Goldstein, & Graen,
2011). Also, seeking feedback from their supervisors more frequently can advance the
relationship of employees and supervisors by informing employees of the areas that
require improvement (Chen, Zhang, & Lam, 2007).
Limited research has focused on
negative outcomes, such as turnover (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995;
Kim et al., 2010).
Regarding the turnover intention, the research has shown that
members who normally perceive higher quality of LMX are less likely to quit their job
than those working under less favorable conditions (Bauer, Erdogan, Liden, & Wayne,
2006; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Schyns, Torka, & Gossling, 2007).
Collins (2010) found
that employees who believe that their supervisors have fulfilled their psychological
contract have low turnover intention. The psychological contract is defined as the
mutual beliefs, perceptions, and informal obligations between an employer and an
employee (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994).
In contrast, Kim et al (2010) claimed that
employees in non-supervisory positions will intend to leave their job, regardless of high
quality or low quality of LMX relationship.
Supervisors are not always equitable in their treatment of employees (Graen &
16
Uhl-Bien, 1995), such that some of employees are treated well, another group is treated
reasonably, but the others are treated badly. Additionally, employee react to equity
differently and those are high in equity sensitivity may have feeling of imbalance if they
perceive inequity.
Huseman, Hatfield, and Miles (1987) explained equity sensitivity as
that "individuals react in consistent but individually different ways to both perceived
equity and inequity because they have different preference" (p. 223). Numerous
research studies equity sensitivity as a moderator variable. Research on equity
sensitivity had connected to citizenship behavior and deviant behavior (Restubog, Bordia,
& Tang, 2007; Taylor, Kluemper, & Sauley, 2009). For instance, Restubog et al.'s
(2007) study revealed the moderating role of equity sensitivity between psychological
contract breach and citizenship behavior.
If the organization does not achieve the
promise to their employees and employees sense it, they are less likely to perform
citizenship behavior. Taken together, sense of unfairness may negatively influence
employees' behaviors (e.g., helping behavior and deviant behavior).
According to Blau's (1964) social exchange theory (SET) and Adam's (1963) equity
theory, the relationship between supervisors and employees is dyadic; therefore,
employees are looking forward to receiving equitable treatment from supervisors.
The
hospitality industry is based on people serving people on a daily basis. For example,
front desk employees interact with customers, supervisors, and coworkers frequently
(Kim et al., 2010). Back of the house employees may have less chance to interact with
customers, but they grant support for the front of the house employees. Maintaining
positive emotion in a intense customercontact industry is important.
Thus, the
17
emotional regulation of supervisors my influence the working attitudes and behaviors of

employees in service encounters with customers (Fisk & Friesen, 2010; Tangirala, Green,
& Ramanujam, 2007).
In order to create a pleasant and harmonious working environment, supervisors may
communicate and interact with employees frequently in order to gain an understanding of
how the employees think and feel (Ladebo et al,, 2008; Lam et al., 2011).
A handful of
research on LMX viewed this topic from only one side (Chen, Mao, Hsieh, Liu, & Yen,
2012; Dusterhoff, Cunningham, & MacGregor, 2013; Kim, O'Neill, & Cho, 2010).
However, it is important to measure both viewpoints of supervisors and employees.
If
supervisors believe that their treatment of employees is equitable but the employees do
not perceive this, the LMX relationship will suffer.
In conclusion, if supervisors do not interact with employees well or employees have
higher equity sensitivity, employees may not have good relationship with their
supervisors. Base on these considerations, the research proposes the following
hypotheses:
H 1: Interactional justice can predict the quality of LMX.
H 2: Equity sensitivity can predict the quality of LMX.
Workplace Envy
Envy is defined as "a pattern of thoughts, emotions, and behaviors that results from an
employees loss of self-esteem in response to a referent others obtainment of outcomes
that one strongly desires (Vecchio, 2000, p. 162).
Because envy is a reaction to a
perceived threat, it causes a sense of insecurity and turns to a type of pressure (Dogan &
18
Vecchio, 2001; Locke & Taylor, 1990).
Envious employees will not help the envied
employees when facing difficulties (Kim et al., 2010).
Once the jealous employees
experience sufficient pressure via this comparative process, they may harm the envied
employees (Heider, 1958; Smith, 2000).
Regarding the relationship between supervisors and employees, envy can happen
when an employee wishes for a closer relationship with their supervisor, but their wishes
was not granted (Kim et al., 2010; Dogan & Vecchio, 2001). Thus, the quality of
relationship between employees and employers play a vital role in emotion, and that
negative emotion will intensify when unfairness was perceived by employees with poor
relationship with supervisors.
In other words, supervisors may decrease or increase the
emotional burden of the employees (Kim et al., 2010).
For the latter, it is not easy for
supervisors to control when employees have envy emotion (Parrott, 1991).

Envy experiences (Miner, 1990) and inequitable viewpoints are common in the
workplace, and often happen simultaneously (Ben-Zeev, 1992; Smith, 1991). However,
some researchers hypothesized that regardless of equitable viewpoints, envy can happen
in any situation in which one feels negatively about his or her worst position in
comparison with another (Ben-Zeev, 1992; Feather & Sherman, 2002; Heider, 1958;
Smith, Parrot, Ozer, & Moniz, 1994). For instance, employees might "experience envy
due to a coworker receiving a corner office regardless if is fair or not (Cohen-Charash
& Mueller, 2007, p. 667). When a person knows that his or her coworker gets the
benefits in an inequitable way, a person may feel envy because a person wants to receive
something equivalent to what his or her coworker has for he or her deserved (Menon &
19
Thompson, 2007; Parrott & Smith, 1993; Smith & Kim, 2007).
Another aspect of envy occurrence is according to Adam's (1965) theory, employees
put same level of efforts, but they may receive different salary and promotion.
In terms
of equity sensitivity, it can be divided into benevolents, equity sensitives, and entitleds
(Huseman et al., 1987).
For the benevolents, employees who "thinks more of
contribution than receiving" (Rychlak, 1973, p. 116).
For the equity sensitives,
employees prefer that their contribution and receiving be equal to comparison others
(Huseman et al., 1987).
For the entitleds, employee think what they receive is deserved
because of their contributions (Greenberg & Westcott, 1983). Employees compare their
outcome/input with other employees.
If employee think it is not a equal deal, they may
produce negative emotions (Huseman et al., 1987).

As mentioned above, envy is an unpleasant and negative emotion.
The topic of
envy has received limited attention particularly in the working environment.

Management normally discounts this negative emotion because they assume that business
interactions and rewards systems are based on reasonable decision making (Dogan &
Vecchio, 2001).
Nonetheless, this issue could have financial implications for the firm
because of the likelihood of its leading to increased employee turnover.
A lot of
researchers suggested that perceived equality is related to envy (Ben-Zeev, 2000;

Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007; Smith, 1991). Tai et al. (2011) referred that "equity
theory is a useful lens for understanding envy" (p. 110).
In contrast, the moral
philosopher Rawls (1971) proposed that envy is not related to justice and that it can
happen only if we are unable not show that the other persons benefits were obtained
20
unfairly.
Everyone responds to injustice differently. Employees' feeling of envy due to
perceptions of unfairness is more serious reaction than feeling of mild frustration (Lucas,
2009; Lambert, Hogan, Jiang, Elechi, Benjamin, Morris, & Dupuy, 2010).
Employees
experience frustration, rather than envy when they perceive injustice, perhaps because
they do not compare themselves with other employees.
Compare to envy, frustration is the lighter side of negative emotion reaction.
Spector (1978) defined frustration as "both the interference with goal attainment or
goal-oriented activity and the interference with goal maintenance" (p. 816).
Fitness
(2000) claimed that "the workplace is one of the most interpersonally frustrating contexts
that people have to deal with" (p. 148).
If employees have strong equity sensitivity,
such as perceive unfair climate, it may lead to the frustration emotion (Ambrose,
Seabright, & Schminke, 2002). Frustration may lead to burnout (Lewandowski, 2003),
so employee with frustration emotion will negatively influence employees' job
performance and job satisfaction (Appelbaum, Deguire, & Lay, 2005; McColl-Kennedy
& Anderson, 2002).
In addition, employee with frustration have "tendency to view
themselves less optimistically when compared to individuals with high positive emotion"
(Shahzad & Mahmood, 2012, p. 583).
They may be less motivated to achieve the goal
that organization required and easily to engender burnout.
Thus, when experiencing
envy or frustration, employees are more likely to have deviant behavior and turnover
intention.
To sum up, once employees are sensitive to unfair treatment that their supervisors
grant them and have bad supervisors-employees relationship, they are more likely to
21
produce envy or frustration (Ambrose et al., 2002; Kim et al., 2010; Kim, Jung, & Lee,
2012; Stecher & Rosse, 2005). According to above-mentioned, these lead to the
following hypotheses:
H 3: Interactional justice can predict the (a) envy or (b) frustration.
H 4: LMX can predict the (a) envy or (b) frustration.
Workplace Deviant Behavior
Workplace deviant behavior (WDB) is defined as voluntary behavior that violates
significant organizational norms (Robinson & Bennett, 1995, p. 556). WDB, task
performance, and citizenship behavior of work behaviors are regarding job performance
(Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). Task performance and citizenship behavior are positive
aspects, yet WDB is a negative aspect and costs the US economy billions of dollars
annually (Bowling & Gruys, 2010). The face of deviance is detrimental to the
organization and employees (Dunlop & Lee, 2004). Thus, Bennett and Robinson (1995)
categorized WDB into WDB-I (individuals) and WDB-O (organization). With regard to
WDB-I, employees harm their coworkers or supervisors, and being rude to coworkers or
supervisors. Regarding to WDB-O, employees do something (e.g., steal organizational
property) which is harmful for the organization.
Research of WDB had connected to personality (Giacalone & Knouse, 1990;
ONeill, Lewis, & Carswell, 2011), motivational traits (Diefedorff & Mehta, 2007),
perceived injustice or inequity (Ambrose et al., 2002; Greenberg, 1990, 1993; Tang &
Tang, 2012), stress (Omar, Halim, Zainah, & Farhadi, 2011), and affective commitment
(Gill, Meyer, Lee, Shin, & Yoon, 2011). Employees whose personality is low on
22
conscientiousness and agreeableness are more likely to engender in deviance (ONeill et

al., 2011). Conscientious employees are goal directed, thus they may believe that
deviance is a intervention for achieving their goal. Agreeable employees think that they
belong to group and collaborate with coworkers; therefore, they are less likely to
engender deviance.
In terms of motivational traits, employees who desire to gain
reward may produce deviance toward their coworkers due to impulsive tendency
(Diefedorff & Mehta, 2007).
In addition, according to social exchange theory, it is
regarding positive reciprocity. Conversely, it could be recognized the negative

reciprocity and it is a useful lens for understanding unfairness on deviant behaviors
(Gouldner, 1960; Mount, Ilies, & Johson, 2006).
In order to restore feeling of
unfairness is based on equity theory, employees may also engage in deviant behavior
The research of WDB has been extensively studied on the relationships between
specific deviant behaviors, such as theft or absenteeism, withholding effort (ONeill et al.,
2011) and work attitudes, such as job satisfaction (Omar et al., 2011) or turnover
intentions (Bolin & Heatherly, 2001; Greenberg, 1993).
Lower job satisfaction and
higher unfairness feeling may encourage employees engage in WDB (Ambrose et al.,
2002), or have a withdrawing behavior to avoid unpleasant work situations (Dalal, 2005;
Hanisch & Hulin, 1990).
If employees perceive the mistreatment of coworkers or
supervisors, they are not willing to help their coworkers or supervisors.
Likewise, if
employees produce strong negative emotions, such as envy, frustration, and anger, they
may influence the working efficiency or have deviance (Lee & Allen, 2002; Judge et al.,
2006; Kim et al., 2012; Spector & Fox, 2002).
In addition, if employees perceive their
23
contribution or effort to be equivalent to coworker but not valued or recognized by

supervisors, they may withdrew their effort which are considered deviance.
They may
be more motivated to commit acts of turnover or leave the organization (Pelled & Xin,
1999).
Research regarding deviance in the hospitality industry is scarce. Yen and Teng
(2012) suggested that hotel companies using centralization which may result decreased
deviant behavior among employees. Because employees have limited autonomy to do
things differently or compete for their talent, and their relationship with supervisors are
most likely to equalized. Employees may collaborate vice versa to reach the goal to the
organization (gaard, Marnburg, & Larsen, 2008). Hotel employees (e.g., front desk)
who perceive inequity from supervisors is more likely to have detrimental impacts on
service encounter. Perceive fairness may be a possibility to mediate the deviance (Yen
& Teng, 2012).
Workplace deviance is costly to originations and has been studied intensively in the
US.
Although recognizing its negative impacts, deviant behaviors received less
attention in Taiwan.
Research in this area may not always reflect the specific deviant
behaviors in Taiwanese workplace and its implication is limited because most researchers
adapted Western workplace deviance scale for their studies.
It can be seen that it is
more likely to omit specific Taiwanese workplace deviance.
For example, drug use is
not widespread in Taiwan but it is common in America.
In America, it is easy to obtain
cannabis even though it is illegal drug (Rosenbaum, 1998). Belhassen and Shani (2013)
suggested that American hospitality employees have highest substance abuse (e.g.,
24
alcohol, drug, and smoking).
It is because of cultural difference.
Taiwan is a
collectivistic society and they can not put up with individuals who violate social norms
(Miller & Makela, 2005).
However, compare to alcohol abuse, Taiwanese male
employees has higher prevalence rate for smoking than drinking (Liang, Kuo, & Wang,
2002).
To sum up, if employees do not maintain good relationships with their supervisors,
they are easily to engage in deviance (Bolino & Turnley, 2009; Kim et al., 2012).
In
addition, unfairness is a possible element for predicting deviance (Greenberg & Alge,
1998).
If employees perceive unfair treatment from their supervisors, have lower equity
sensitivity and negative emotions, they are more likely to have deviance (Ambrose et al.,
2002; Cropanzano & Rupp, 2008; Jones, 2009). Based on the above mentioned rational,
a hypothesis is proposed as:
H 5: (a) Envy or (b) frustration can predict the workplace deviant behavior.
Turnover Intention
Turnover intention is defined as the (subjective) probability that an individual will
change his or her job within a certain time period (Sousa-Poza & Henneberger, 2004, p.
113). A high turnover rate is a problematic issue for the hotel industry (Carbery et al.,
2003), the goal of which is to foster long-term employment (Iverson & Deery, 1997).
Regarding the economic aspect, turnover means that companies pay substantial amounts
of money for employee training and recruitment and lost productivity (Hinkin & Tracey,
2008).
In the working environment, turnover might engender negative outcomes for
firms, such as a decrease in instrumental communication and behavioral commitment.
25
When supervisors assign work tasks to employees with turnover intentions, those
employees might not perform as well as those without turnover intentions. Furthermore,
standards of new employees that do not meet supervisor expectations might cause
increased financial losses.
Turnover intention is one of the behavioral outcomes which is related to equity
theory (Carrell & Dittrich, 1976; Telly et al., 1971; Dittrich & Carrell, 1979).
Employees may compare their coworkers' job contribution and reward (Dittrich & Carrell,
1979). Once employees frequently experience imbalances, they may have strong desire
to leave their job (Adam, 1965; Aquino, Griffeth, Allen, & Hom, 1997).
In addition,
employees who have a poor relationship with supervisors (Hinkin & Simons, 2000;
Chalkiti & Carson, 2010) or, sense that their supervisors treat them unfairly and do not
support them, both of which might increase the change to have a conflict with their
coworkers (e.g., through envy) (Yang et al., 2012).
Consequently, they may behave less
civilly and commitment to their organization, and might be more likely to have turnover
intention (Greenberg, 1987; Weaver & Yancey, 2010).
In addition, job satisfaction has
been recognized as an important factor in turnover intention in the workplace (Blau &
Boal, 1989; Brooke, 1988). Dissatisfaction with pay (Hinkin & Simons, 2000) and
job-related benefits (Cho, Woods, Jang, & Erden, 2006; Lo & Lam, 2002), job pressure
(e.g., work overload), bullying (Hauge, Skogstad, & Einarsen, 2010; Houshmand, O'reilly,
Robinson, & Wolff, 2012), and burnout (Chalkiti & Sigala, 2010; Karatepe, Babakus, &
Yavas, 2012; ONeill & Xiao, 2010; Shani & Pizam, 2009) may also induce employees
incline to leave their job.
26
Employees' low morale is one of the intangible costs to the hotel industry (Nadiri &
Tanova, 2010).
If employees relate positively to their coworkers, their intention to leave
their job might have influence on other employees' intention to stay (Chalkiti & Carson,
2010).
The resignation of employees from their job is likely to influence the remaining
employees' morale, which can negatively affect job performance and lead to poor
customer service that will take a toll on new employees who are unfamiliar with service
standard (Alonso & O'Neill, 2009; Dickerson, 2009).
In terms of burnout, front desk
employees are more likely to produce burnout than those in other department employees
(Karatepe et al., 2012).
They are expected to be upbeat and courteous at all time
regardless they are in good or bad mood.
They easily experience the emotional labor
which consists of surface acting and deep acting (Lam & Chen, 2012). Surface acting is
not real emotion, but expected emotion required by the job position (Diefendorff, Croyle,
& Gosserand, 2005). On the contrary, deep acting is one's real emotion (Diefendorff et
al., 2005). Consistently display of surface acting can easily lead to emotional
exhaustion (Kim, 2008), is recognized as one of the challenges working in the service
industry (e.g., the lodging industry). Without doubt, high turnover rate is common in
the hotel industry nowadays (Yang et al., 2012).
To sum up, higher equity sensitivity, for example supervisors grant unfair treatment
to employees, employees have low supervisorsemployees relationship and have negative
emotions may have higher turnover intention (Lam & Chen, 2012; Nandedkar &
Deshpande, 2012). Thus, this preceding discussion leads to the following hypothesis:
H 6: (a) Envy or (b) frustration can predict the turnover intention.
27
Labor Law
Labor law is about protecting employees rights and interests. When employees are
provided with legal pay which fits in with labor law regulation, employees will not
accuse employers violate the labor law.
According to Taiwanese Labor Law, the
minimum salary for full-time employees is $19,047 NT per month (approximately $635
USD).
The minimum hourly wage for part-time employees is $109 NT (approximately
$3.7 USD).
According the Bureau of Labor Statistics of US, the minimum salary for
full-time employees is $ 1,160 USD per month and the minimum hourly wage for
part-time employees is $7.25 USD.
Research Propositions
Research have documented the benefits of good quality of LMX, but few studies
exam the negative emotions (e.g., envy or frustration) and the impact on turnover
intention and deviant behavior.
In fact, understanding both positive outcomes and
negative outcomes of supervisoremployees relationship is important, especially the

negative emotions.
If research only focus on positive outcomes on
supervisoremployees relationship and ignore negative emotion, the problem will still
exist. Practitioners could understand more knowledge in this research, for example if
the predictions were confirmed, the direct influence in the hospitality industry is service
quality. The study conceptual framework is presented in Figure 1 and the purposes of
this research are to investigate the following propositions:
1.
Do interactional justice significantly predict LMX?
2.
Do equity sensitivity significantly predict LMX?
28
3.
Do interactional justice significantly predict negative emotions?
4.
Do LMX significantly predict negative emotions?
5.
Do negative emotions significantly predict negative behaviors?
6.
Do interactional fairness, equity sensitivity, supervisors' and employees'

relationship, envy, and frustration significantly predict (a) deviant
behavior and (b) turnover intention?
7.
Are there significant differences between demographic characteristics and

the seven variables?
8.
Are there significant differences between background information and the

seven variables?
Results of the research can be benefit top manager and human resource management
in maintaining a healthy working environment.
It will call for managers' attention on
the impact of negative emotion and workplace unfairness.

H3a
H6a
H4a
Interactional
justice
H1
Leadermember
exchange
H2
H3b
Envy
Equity
sensitivity
Figure 1. Conceptual framework
Turnover
intention
H5a H6b
H4b
Frustration
H5b
Workplace
deviant
behavior
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
The methodology chapter discusses the use of human subject review, sampling
procedure, instrument design, and data analysis in this research.
Details regarding the
constructs measured and pilot test are also discussed.

Human Subject Review
The researcher in this study completed human subjects training and is certified by
Kent State University (KSU). The KSU Human Subjects Review Board reviewed and
approved the proposal application for this study on July 1, 2013. The research was
approved and met the criteria for exemption 2 under federal regulation
stating it was research with minimal risk to human subjects.
Sample
This research aims to examine both supervisors and employees.
This research did
not specify on age and gender because the research was not able to expect sample size.
The survey questionnaires was be distributed in America and Taiwan.
For American
data, the survey instrument was be distributed to both supervisors and employees in
Northern Ohio hotels.
For Taiwanese data, the survey instrument was be distributed to
both supervisors and employees in international tourist hotels in Taipei City and
Kaohsiung City.
Taipei is the first largest city and Kaohsiung is the second largest city
in Taiwan. According to statistics obtained from the Tourism Bureau, Republic of

29
30
China (TBROC), there are thirty-six standard tourist hotels and seventy international
tourist hotels in Taiwan.
hotels in Taipei.
Of the 160 hotels, there are twenty-five international tourist
Of the l06 hotels, there are ten international tourist hotels in Kaohsiung.
Standard tourist hotels are classified as one to three star hotels, and they are required to
provide clean and tidy facilities with basic service.
International tourist hotels are
classified as four or five star hotels, and they are required to provide a high level of
product and service with luxurious facilities (e.g., swimming pool).
Instrument Design
The survey instrument contains three sections with a total of eighty-two questions.
Section one lists demographic and background information. The questions included
gender, age, educational level, marital status, working experience of hospitality and hotel,
working department, working status, job title, salary perception, and job tenure. Section
two contains the seven scales (e.g., equity sensitivity, interactional justice, envy,
frustration, workplace deviant behavior, and turnover intention). Finally, the
open-ended question is included by asking participants' perceptions of fairness for both of
supervisors and employees. The questions included "If you are a supervisor, how do
you treat your employees?", "How does your supervisor treat you?", "How does your
supervisor treat you?", and "Have you ever heard any workplace deviance?".
The original versions of most scales were in English, but many of them were also
available in Chinese version. For the questionnaires, which were in English version only,
a back-translation was employed to ensure validity. That questionnaires was translated to
Chinese by the researcher, and another expert who was proficient in both Chinese and
31
English. The experts translated the scale from Chinese back to English to check the
validity of the scales. A pilot test was be conducted to fine tune the wording of the
questionnaires. It is believed that back-translation is a widely accepted method to
"maintain the equivalence between the original and translated versions" (Cha, Kim, &
Erlen, 2007, p. 386).
Interactional justice was assessed by Interactional Justice scale.
Interactional
Justice was developed by Morrman (1991) and included six items. This scale asks
employees to indicate the extent of their agreement or disagreement with each item on a
five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
The scale is about employees' perceptions of treatment from supervisors in the working
environment (Ando & Matsuda, 2010). A sample item included: Your supervisor
considered your viewpoint. The Cronbach's Alpha for interactional justice was 0.94
(Miller, Konopaske, & Byrne, 2012).
Equity sensitivity was assessed by Equity Preference Questionnaire.
Preference Questionnaire was developed by Sauley and Bedeian (2000).
Equity
All sixteen
items were measured on a five-point Liker-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 5 (strongly agree). The scale measured if employee have high equity sensitivity or
low equity sensitivity in the workplace.
Not only can this scale used to measure
employees, but it is also use to test students (Foote & Harmon, 2006). Sample items
included: "I prefer to do as little as possible at work while getting as much as I can from
my employer." and "I an most satisfied at work when I have to do as little as possible."
The Cronbach's Alpha for interactional justice was 0.86 (Shore & Strauss, 2008).
32
This research used LeaderMember Social Exchange (LMSX) scale to test LMX
which was developed by Bernerth, Armenakis, Feild, Giles, and Walker (2007). All
twelve items are measured on a five-point Liker-type scale, range from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). While many research measured LMX solely from
employees' viewpoint (Gerstner & Day. 1997; Scandura & Schriesheim, 1994;
Schriesheim, Neider, & Scandura, 1998; Kim et al., 2010), this research assessed
viewpoint of both supervisors and employees.
employees in the workplace.
This scale was fitted for using among
Sample items included: If my manager does something
for me, I will return the favor at some point. and My manager and I have a two-way
exchange relationship.
The Cronbach's Alpha for LMSX was between 0.82 and 0.92
(Bernerth et al., 2007; Li, Sanders, & Frenkel, 2012).

Envy was assessed by Workplace Envy scale.
Workplace Envy was developed by
Vecchio (2000). The scale is regarding how your supervisors view an employee and
how he/she compares with coworkers that may produce envy in the workplace. There
are five items on a five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree).
A sample item included: My supervisor values the efforts of others
more than she/ he values my efforts. and the Cronbach's Alpha for envy was 0.97 (Kim
et al., 2012).
Frustration is assessed by Frustration-Emotional Reactions-Hostility Scales.
Workplace Frustration was developed by Keenan and Newton (1984).
This scales
contains fourteen items and include measurement of environmental frustration (six items),
emotional reaction (four items), and latent hostility (four items). The environmental
33
frustration is fit to measure frustration among employees in the workplace.
There are a
total of six items on a five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). Sample items included: "There are times when my efforts to just do my
job as efficiently as possible are blocked by other people" and "There are a lot of petty and
arbitrary rules at work."
The Cronbach's Alpha for frustration was 0.73 (Mnard, Brunet,
& Savoie, 2011).

Workplace Deviant Behavior is assessed by Workplace Deviant Behavior scale.
Workplace Deviant Behavior scale was developed by Bennett and Robinson (2000).
This scale is fit to measure the deviance among employees in the workplace.
This scale
contains nineteen items on a seven-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 7

(Daily). Several researchers used Bennett and Robinson's scale, and they heighted the
scale is applicable to the lodging industry (Taylor, Kluemper, & Sauley, 2009; Yen &
Teng, 2012). Bennett and Robinson's scale consists of two subscales: twelve items scale
of WDB-O that measure deviance in the organization and seven items scale of WDB-I
that measure deviance in individuals. Sample items included: Taken property from
work without permission. (WDB-O) and Made fun of someone at work (WDB-I). The
Cronbach's Alpha for WDBS was between 0.88 and 0.92 (Omar, Halim, Zainah, &
Farhadi, 2011; O'Neill et al., 2011).
Turnover Intention is assessed by Turnover Intention scale.
Turnover Intention
scale was developed by Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, and Me glino (1979).
While there are
lots of turnover scales, this research choose the Mobley et al.'s (1979) as their scale fit
best to this research.
Employees will be asked to indicate the extent of their agreement
34
or disagreement on each item using a five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1

(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item included: I think a lot about
leaving the organization. The Cronbach's Alpha for turnover intention was 0.85
(Nadiri & Tanova, 2010).
Before distributing the questionnaires, the author contacted with hotels' general
managers of hotels to obtain their permission to survey their supervisors and employees.
Data collection began during summer 2013.
Comparison were made among
demographic and background factors.

Data Analysis
The collected data was analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Science
(SPSS).
Seven methods of data analysis were performed in this research to test the
hypotheses.
First, the descriptive statistics was computed to report the mean, standard
deviation of demographic and background information. Second, the survey questions

was tested for internal consistency reliability of the scales through Cronbach alpha
coefficient.
Third, Pearson correlation coefficients were performed to test the
relationships between the variables: (1) interactional justice, (2) equity sensitivity, (3)
LMX, (4) envy, (5) frustration, (6) turnover intention, and (7) deviance. Fourth, a series
of regression models used to test the relationship among interactional justice, equity
sensitivity, LMX, envy, and frustration to determine if the constructs will predict
turnover intention and deviance. (Interactional justice is the independent variable and
LMX is the dependent variable).
Fifth, t-tests were conducted to reflect whether the
variables differ between males and females. Sixth, one-way ANOVA were used to
35
examine difference between background information (e.g., age, educational level, martial
status, and tenure) and seven variables.
Finally, a qualitative method was utilized to
summaries the open-ended questions regarding the perceptions of equity among

supervisors and employees in the workplace.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
This study was designed to explore working life for hotel employees.
Specifically,
this study was to explore if unfair treatment will cause negative emotion and behaviors.
This study explore effect of negative emotion at workplace, whereas not many studies
focus on this field. This study hopes to offer insights to improve negative situations
because to offer harmonious working life quality is important for the company.
For the American Sample, the survey were distributed to hotels in Northeastern Ohio.
Those hotels are three-star and above hotels.
Of the 139 surveys distributed, four were
removed from further analysis due to invalid responses.
In all, a total of 135 valid
responses were used, resulting 94.3% in the analysis.

For the Taiwanese Sample, the survey were distributed to seven hotels in Southern
Taiwan and two hotels in Northern Taiwan. Those hotels are five-star hotels.
510 surveys distributed, 499 responses were received.
responses were used, resulting 96.8% in the analysis.
Of the
In all, a total of 491 valid

Because some participants missed
background information section and some participants had invalid answer, eight surveys
were removed from analysis.
Demographic Characteristics
For the Taiwanese employees, the majority of respondent were female (71.2%),
were Single (71.4%), and graduated from university (70.8%). Close to half of the
36
37
respondents (34.9%) worked at food and beverage department.
Most of respondents
(85.4%) currently worked full-time employees and less than twenty percent of
respondents were supervisors or managers (18.5%).
In terms of career related question,
over half of the respondents (62.1%) did not satisfy their salary.
For the American
employees, the majority of respondent were female (70.2%), were Single (90.2%), and
graduated from university (87.1%). Close to half of the respondents (37.4%) worked at
front desk and (38.9%) worked at food and beverage department.
Close to half of
respondents (38.3) currently worked as full-time employees and (36.6%) currently did
not worked at hotel.
managers (22.1%).
Less than thirty percent of respondents were supervisors or

In terms of career related question, the majority of respondents
(61.1%) were satisfied with their salary.
Demographic characteristics of the
respondents can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Taiwanese and American Hotel Employees
Characteristics
Gender
Male
Female
Marital Status
Single
Married without Children
Married with Children
Divorced without Children
Divorced with Children
Widow
Educational levels
High School
Vocational High School
University
Graduate School
%
Mean
Taiwan
140
351
28.4
71.2
352
37
96
1
4
1
71.4
7.5
19.5
0.2
0.8
0.2
27
80
349
35
5.5
16.2
70.8
7.1
1.71
SD
.45
39
93
29.5
70.2
119
2
6
0
4
1
90.2
1.5
4.5
0.0
3.0
0.8
10
3
115
4
7.6
2.3
87.1
3.0
1.52
.89
2.80
.64
%
Mean
America
SD
1.70
.45
1.27
.89
2.86
.58
38
Table 1 continued
Characteristics
Departments
Front Desk
Housekeeping
Food & Beverage
Sales & Marketing
Accounting
Maintenance & Engineering
Purchasing
Others
Working Status
Full-time
Part-time
Currently not Working
Job Positions
Supervisors/managers
Employees
Perception of Salary
Underpaid
Fair
Overpaid
%
Mean
Taiwan
65
35
172
40
48
6
19
106
13.2
7.1
34.9
8.1
9.7
1.2
3.9
21.5
421
68
2
85.4
13.8
0.4
91
400
18.5
81.1
306
181
3
62.1
36.7
0.6
SD
4.21
2.39
1.53
.36
1.81
.38
1.38
.49
%
Mean
America
49
4
51
2
0
1
0
18
37.4
3.1
38.9
1.5
0.0
1.5
0.0
13.7
50
33
48
38.3
25.2
36.6
29
102
22.1
77.9
47
80
4
35.9
61.1
3.1
SD
3.26
2.67
2.11
.78
1.78
.41
1.67
.53
Descriptive Statistics
For the Taiwanese sample, Cronbach's coefficient alpha for the seven constructs
was .90 for interactional justice, .83 for equity sensitivity, .80 for leadermember
exchange, .67 for workplace envy, .57 for workplace frustration, .90 for workplace
deviant behavior, and .88 for turnover intention.
For the American sample, Cronbach's
coefficient alpha for the seven constructs was .90 for interactional justice, .84 for equity
sensitivity, .84 for leadermember exchange, .74 for workplace envy, .59 for workplace
frustration, .89 for workplace deviant behavior, and .89 for turnover intention.
For the countries difference, results revealed that the means for Taiwan and America
on interactional justice (t = -7.74, p < .05), equity sensitivity (t = 38.62, p < .05),
leadermember exchange (LMX) (t = -8.23, p < .05), workplace envy (t = 7.09, p < .05),
39
workplace frustration (t = 5.04, p < .05), and turnover intention (t = 2.71, p < .05) were
statistically different.
America had higher interactional justice (M = 24.32), LMX (M =
3.71), and deviance (M = 32.52). Taiwan had higher equity sensitivity (M =59.44), envy
(M = 13.49), frustration (M = 19.63), and turnover intention (M = 8.17).
However, no
significant difference was found in workplace deviant behavior between variable

countries difference.
Descriptive statistics, including reliability, mean scores and
standard deviations of all measured constructs among American and Taiwanese hotel
employees can be seen in Table 2.
Table 2
Summary Scale Statistics of Seven Variables among Taiwanese and American Hotel
Employees
Measure
Countries
Taiwan
America
Equity Sensitivity
Taiwan
America
LeaderMember Exchange
Taiwan
America
Workplace Envy
Taiwan
America
Workplace Frustration
Taiwan
America
Taiwan
America
Turnover Intention
Taiwan
America
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Reliability
.90
.90
.83
.84
.80
.84
.67
.74
.57
.59
.90
.89
.80
.89
Mean
3.52
3.63
3.71
3.78
3.23
3.33
2.69
2.58
3.31
3.25
1.57
1.60
2.72
2.65
SD
4.20
4.18
8.26
4.46
5.77
7.39
2.96
3.86
2.70
3.28
13.78
12.69
3.06
3.84
Sig. (2-tailed)
-7.74
.00***
38.62
.00***
-8.23
.00***
7.09
.00***
5.04
.00***
-1.96
2.71
.05
.00***
Mean comparisons on workplace deviant behaviors between the two countries can
be seen in Table 3.
The top two items are "spending too much time fantasizing or
daydreaming instead working" and "cursing at someone at work." The bottom two are
"falsifying a receipt to get reimbursed for more money than you spent on business
40
expenses" and "using an illegal drug or consuming alcohol on the job."

Table 3
Countries Comparisons on Workplace Deviant Behavior Scale
Items
Spent too much time fantasizing or daydreaming
instead working.
Cursed at someone at work.
Put little effort into your work.
Made fun of some at work
Intentionally worked slower than you could have
worked.
Taken an additional or a longer break than is
acceptable your workplace.
Littered your work environment.
Said something hurtful to someone at work.
Come in late to work without permission.
Neglected to follow your boss's instructions.
Played a mean prank on someone at work.
Taken property from work without permission.
Publicly embarrassed someone at work,
Acted rudely toward someone at work.
Discussed confidential company information with an
unauthorized person.
Made an ethnic, religious, or racial remark or joke at
work.
Dragged out work in order to get overtime.
Falsified a receipt to get reimbursed for more money
than you spent on business expenses.
Used an illegal drug or consumed alcohol on the job.
Taiwan
Mean
Rank
America
Mean
Rank
2.44
2.60
1.96
1.92
1.88
2
3
4
1.99
1.92
1.99
2
4
2
1.74
1.80
1.71
1.76
1.69
1.61
1.57
1.52
1.47
1.45
1.43
1.37
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1.62
1.62
1.61
1.58
1.51
1.41
1.38
1.43
7
7
9
10
11
13
14
12
1.34
15
1.35
15
1.29
16
1.33
16
1.28
17
1.32
17
1.17
18
1.15
18
1.11
19
1.14
19
Correlations
Pearson correlations were computed in order to examine the relationships among the
seven variables in this study, namely interactional justice, equity sensitivity, workplace
envy, workplace frustration, workplace deviant behavior, and turnover intention.
Table 4 indicates the Pearson correlations between variables for the Taiwanese
sample.
As hypothesized, interactional justice was significantly positively correlated
with leadermember exchange (LMX) (H1; r = .48, p < .05); interactional justice was
41
negatively correlated with workplace envy (H3a; r = -.17, p < .05); LMX was
significantly positively correlated with workplace frustration (H4b; r = .18, p < .05);
workplace envy (H5a; r = .20, p < .05) and workplace frustration (H5b; r = .13, p < .05)
were significantly positively correlated with workplace deviant behavior; workplace envy
(H6a; r = .24, p < .05) and workplace frustration (H6b; r = .28, p < .05) were
significantly positively correlated with turnover intention.
However, equity sensitivity
was not significantly correlated with LMX (H2; r = .06, p > .05); interactional justice was
not significantly correlated with workplace frustration (H3b; r = -.83, p > .05); LMX was
not significantly correlated with workplace envy (H4a; r = .03, p > .05).
Table 4
Pearson Correlations among Variables among Taiwanese Hotel Industry (N = 493)
Variable
1
1. Interactional Justice
-2. Equity Sensitivity
-3. LeaderMember Exchange
-4. Workplace Envy
-5. Workplace Frustration
-6. Workplace Deviant Behavior
-7. Turnover Intention
-Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
2
.23***
-------
3
.48***
.06
------
4
-.17***
-.40***
.03
-----
5
-.08
-.13**
.18*
.44***
----
6
-.13**
-.35***
.06
.20***
.13**
---
7
-.25***
-.31***
-.17***
.24***
.28***
.24***
--
Table 5 indicates the Pearson correlations between variables for the American
sample.
As hypothesized, there was a positive and significant correlation between
interactional justice and leadermember exchange (LMX) (H1; r = .65, p < .05); equity
sensitivity significantly as positively correlated with LMX (H2; r = .34, p < .05);
interactional justice was negatively correlated with workplace envy (H3a; r = -.45, p
< .05); interactional justice was negatively correlated with workplace frustration (H3b; r
= -.41, p < .05); LMX was negatively correlated with workplace envy (H4a; r = -.38, p
42
< .05); LMX was positively correlated with workplace frustration (H4b; r = -.19, p < .05);
workplace frustration was positively correlated with workplace deviant behavior (H5b; r
= .18, p < .05); workplace envy (H6a; r = .35, p < .05) and workplace frustration (H6b; r
= .38, p < .05) were positively correlated with turnover intention.
However, workplace
envy was not significantly correlated with workplace deviant behavior (H5a; r = .06, p
> .05).
Table 5
Pearson Correlations among Variables among American Hotel Industry (N = 135)
Variable
1
1. Interactional Justice
-2. Equity Sensitivity
-3. LeaderMember Exchange
-4. Workplace Envy
-5. Workplace Frustration
-6. Workplace Deviant Behavior
-7. Turnover Intention
-Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
2
.28***
-------
3
.65***
.34***
------
4
-.45***
-.26***
-.38***
-----
5
-.41***
-.06
-.19*
.31***
----
6
-.18*
-.14
-.06
.06
.18*
---
7
-.36***
-.29***
-.44***
.35***
.38***
.17*
--
Simple Linear Regression

A series of simple linear regression analyses were computed to determine the
predictive power between each variables listed as bellow.
The first hypothesis was to
examine the relationship between leadermember exchange (LMX) and interactional

justice.
For the Taiwanese sample, LMX had a mean value of 38.83 (SD = 5.77).
predictor, interactional justice had a mean value of 21.16 (SD = 4.20).
For the
Interactional
justice provided statistically significant explanation of variance in leadermember

exchange. F (1, 491) = 151.43, p < .05. For the coefficient of determination (i.e., R2) it
was found that 23.6% of the variance in LMX is explained by interactional justice. The
43
regression equation is as follows: Y (LMX) = 24.73 + .66X (interactional justice). With

each one point increase on the Likert-type scale of employees' interactional justice, the
LMX will increase by .66.
Thus, hypothesis 1 is supported. A summary of the
regression is presented Table 6.

Table 6
Summary of Simple Linear Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Interactional Justice
on LMX for Taiwanese Sample
Constant
B
24.73
.66
SE
1.16
.05
Beta
.48
Sig.
.00
.00
For the American sample, LMX had a mean value of 44.49 (SD = 7.39). For the
predictor, interactional justice had a mean value of 24.32 (SD = 4.18).
Interactional
justice provided statistically significant explanation of variance in leadermember

exchange. F (1, 133) = 101.91, p < .05. For the coefficient of determination (i.e., R2) it
was found that 43.4% of the variance in LMX is explained by interactional justice. The
regression equation is as follows: Y (LMX) = 16.16 + 1.16X (interactional justice).
With each one point increase on the Likert-type scale of employees' interactional justice,
the LMX will increase by 1.16.
Thus, hypothesis 1 is supported. A summary of the
regression is presented Table 7.

Table 7
on LMX for American Sample
Constant
B
7.74
.37
SE
1.66
.37
Beta
.65
Sig.
.00
.00
44
The second hypothesis was to examine the relationship between equity sensitivity
and leadermember exchange (LMX).
For the Taiwanese sample, LMX had a mean value of 38.83 (SD = 5.77).
For the
predictor, equity sensitivity had a mean value of 59.44 (SD = 8.26). Equity sensitively
did not provide statistically significant explanation of variance in leadermember
exchange F (1, 491) = 2.34, p > .05.
Thus, hypothesis 2 is not supported.
Table 8
shows the summary from this simple linear regression.

Table 8
Summary of Simple Linear Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Equity Sensitivity on
LeaderMember Exchange for Taiwanese sample
Constant
Equity Sensitivity
B
35.96
.04
SE
1.88
.03
Beta
.06
For the American sample, LMX had a mean value of 44.49 (SD = 7.39).
Sig.
.00
.12
For the
predictor, equity sensitivity had a mean value of 30.39 (SD = 4.46). Equity sensitively
provided statistically significant explanation of variance in LMX F (1, 133) = 17.92, p
< .05. For the coefficient of determination (i.e., R2) it was found that 11.9% of the
variance in LMX is explained by equity sensitivity.
weak relationship with LMX.
Equity sensitivity is significant, but
The regression equation is as follows: Y (LMX) = 26.84
+ .57X (equity sensitivity). With each one point increase on the Likert-type scale of
employees' equity sensitivity, the LMX will increase by .57.
supported.
Thus, hypothesis 2 is
A summary of the regression is presented Table 9.
45
Table 9
Summary of Simple Linear Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Equity Sensitivity on
LeaderMember Exchange for American Sample
Constant
Equity Sensitivity
B
26.84
.57
SE
4.21
.13
Beta
.34
Sig.
.00
.00
The hypothesis 3a was to examine the relationship between interactional justice and
workplace envy.
For the Taiwanese sample, workplace envy had a mean value of 13.49 (SD = 2.96).
For the predictor, interactional justices had a mean value of 21.16 (SD = 4.20).
Interactional justice provided statistically significant explanation of variance in
workplace envy F (1, 491) = 15.09, p < .05. For the coefficient of determination (i.e.,
R2) it was found that 3% of the variance in workplace envy is explained by interactional
justice.
Interactional justice is significant, but weak relationship with workplace envy.
The regression equation is as follows: Y (workplace envy) = 16.06 - .12X (interactional

justice). With each one point increase on the Likert-type scale of interactional justice,
an employees' workplace envy will decrease by .12.
Thus, hypothesis 3a is supported.
A summary of the simple linear regression is indicated in Table 10.

Table 10
on Workplace Envy for Taiwanese Sample
Constant
B
16.06
-.12
SE
.67
.03
Beta
-.17
Sig.
.00
.00
For the American sample, workplace envy had a mean value of 10.95 (SD = 3.86).
46
For the predictor, interactional justices had a mean value of 24.32 (SD = 4.18).
workplace envy F (1, 133) = 34.55, p < .05. For the coefficient of determination (i.e.,
R2) it was found that 20.6% of the variance in workplace envy is explained by
interactional justice.
Interactional justice is significant, but weak relationship with
workplace envy. The regression equation is as follows: Y (workplace envy) = 21.15

- .42X (interactional justice). With each one point increase on the Likert-type scale of
interactional justice, an employees' workplace envy will decrease by .42.
Thus,
hypothesis 3a is supported. A summary of the simple linear regression is indicated in

Table 11.
Table 11
on Workplace Envy for American Sample
Constant
B
21.15
-.42
SE
1.76
.07
Beta
-.45
Sig.
.00
.00
The hypothesis 3b was to examine the relationship between interactional justice and
workplace frustration.
For the Taiwanese sample, workplace frustration had a mean value of 16.56 (SD =
2.67). For the predictor, interactional justices had a mean value of 21.16 (SD = 4.20).
Interactional justice did not provide statistically significant explanation of variance in
workplace frustration F (1, 133) = 22.84, p > .05.
Thus, hypothesis 3b is not supported.
A summary of this simple linear regression is indicated in Table 12.
47
Table 12
on Workplace Frustration for Taiwanese Sample
Constant
B
17.67
-.05
SE
.61
.02
Beta
-.08
Sig.
.00
.06
For the American sample, workplace frustration had a mean value of 15.14 (SD =
3.36). For the predictor, interactional justices had a mean value of 24.32 (SD = 4.18).
workplace frustration F (1, 133) = 28, p < .05.
For the coefficient of determination (i.e.,
R2) it was found that 17.4% of the variance in workplace frustration is explained by
interactional justice. The regression equation is as follows: Y (workplace frustration) =
23.31 - .33X (interactional justice). With each one point increase on the Likert-type
scale of employees' interactional justice, the workplace frustration will decrease by .33.
Thus, hypothesis 3b is supported. A summary of the simple linear regression is
indicated in Table 13.
Table 13
on Workplace Frustration for American Sample
Constant
B
23.31
-.33
SE
1.56
.06
Beta
-.41
Sig.
.00
.00
The hypothesis 4a was to examine the relationship between leadermember

exchange (LMX) and workplace envy.
For the Taiwanese sample, workplace envy had a mean value of 13.49 (SD = 2.96).
48
For the predictor, LMX had a mean value of 38.83 (SD = 5.77).
LMX did not provide
statistically significant explanation of variance in workplace envy F (1, 491) = .73, p

> .05.
Thus, hypothesis 4a is not supported.
A summary of this simple linear
regression is indicated in Table 14.

Table 14
Summary of Simple Linear Regression Analysis for the Prediction of LeaderMember
Exchange (LMX) on Workplace Envy for Taiwanese Sample
Constant
LMX
B
12.72
.02
SE
.90
.02
Beta
.03
Sig.
.00
.39
For the American sample, workplace envy had a mean value of 10.95 (SD = 3.86).
For the predictor, LMX had a mean value of 44.49 (SD = 7.39).
LMX provided
statistically significant explanation of variance in workplace envy F (1, 133) = 22.84, p

< .05. For the coefficient of determination (i.e., R2) it was found that 14.7% of the
variance in workplace envy is explained by LMX.
The regression equation is as follows:
Y (workplace envy) = 19.85 - .20X (LMX). With each one point increase on the
Likert-type scale of employees' LMX, the workplace envy will decrease by .20.
hypothesis 4a is supported.
Thus,
A summary of this simple linear regression is indicated in
Table 15.
Table 15
Exchange (LMX) on Workplace Envy for American Sample
Constant
LMX
B
19.85
-.20
SE
1.88
.04
Beta
-.38
Sig.
.00
.00
49
The hypothesis 4b was to examine the relationship between leadermember

exchange (LMX) and workplace frustration.
For the Taiwanese sample, workplace frustration had a mean value of 12.56 (SD =
2.77). For the predictor, LMX had a mean value of 38.83 (SD = 5.77).
LMX provided
statistically significant explanation of variance in workplace frustration F (1, 491) =

17.24, p < .05. For the coefficient of determination (i.e., R2) it was found that 3.4% of
the variance in workplace frustration is explained by LMX.
LMX is significant, but
weak relationship with workplace frustration. The regression equation is as follows: Y

(workplace frustration) = 13.25 + .08X (LMX).
With each one point increase on the
Likert-type scale of LMX, the workplace frustration will increase by .08.

hypothesis 4b is supported.
Thus,
Table 16.
Table 16
Exchange (LMX) on Workplace Frustration for Taiwanese Sample
Constant
LMX
B
13.25
.08
SE
.80
.02
Beta
.18
Sig.
.00
.00
For the American sample, workplace frustration had a mean value of 15.14 (SD =
3.36). For the predictor, LMX had a mean value of 44.49 (SD = 7.39).
LMX provided
statistically significant explanation of variance in workplace frustration F (1, 133) = 5.44,

p < .05. For the coefficient of determination (i.e., R2) it was found that 3.9% of the
variance in workplace frustration is explained by LMX.
LMX is significant, but weak
50
relationship with workplace frustration. The regression equation is as follows: Y

(workplace frustration) = 19.16 - .09X (LMX).
With each one point increase on the
Likert-type scale of LMX, the workplace frustration will decrease by .09.

hypothesis 4b is supported.
Thus,
Table 17.
Table 17
Exchange (LMX) on Workplace Frustration for American Sample
Constant
LMX
B
19.16
-.09
SE
1.74
.03
Beta
Sig.
.00
.02
.18
The hypothesis 5a was to explore the relationship between workplace envy and
workplace deviance.
For the Taiwanese sample, workplace deviant behavior had a mean value of 29.93
(SD = 13.78). For the predictor, workplace envy had a mean value of 13.49 (SD = 2.96).
Workplace envy provided statistically significant explanation of variance in workplace
deviant behavior F (1, 491) = 22.46, p < .05. For the coefficient of determination (i.e.,
R2) it was found that 4.4% of the variance in workplace deviant behavior is explained by
workplace envy. Workplace envy is significant, but weak relationship with workplace
deviant behavior. The regression equation is as follows: Y (workplace deviant behavior)
= 19.82 + .97X (workplace envy). With each one point increase on the Likert-type scale
of workplace envy, the workplace deviant behavior will increase by .97.
hypothesis 5a is supported.
Thus,
51
Table 18.
Table 18
Summary of Simple Linear Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Workplace Envy on
Workplace Deviant Behavior for Taiwanese Sample
Constant
Workplace Envy
B
16.82
.97
SE
2.83
.20
Beta
.20
Sig.
.00
.00
For the American sample, workplace deviant behavior had a mean value of 32.52
(SD = 12.65). For the predictor, workplace envy had a mean value of 10.95 (SD = 3.86).
Workplace envy did not provide statistically significant explanation of variance in
workplace deviant behavior F (1, 133) = .49, p > .05.
supported.
Thus, hypothesis 5a is not
A summary of this simple linear regression is indicated in Table 19.
Table 19
Workplace Deviant Behavior for American Sample
Constant
Workplace Envy
B
30.32
.20
SE
3.29
.28
Beta
.06
Sig.
.00
.48
The hypothesis 5b was to explore the relationship between workplace frustration and
workplace deviance.
For the Taiwanese sample, workplace deviant behavior had a mean value of 29.93
(SD = 13.78). For the predictor, workplace frustration had a mean value of 16.56 (SD =
2.67). Workplace frustration provided statistically significant explanation of variance in
workplace deviant behavior F (1, 491) = 8.97, p < .05. For the coefficient of
determination (i.e., R2) it was found that 1.8% of the variance in workplace deviant
52
behavior is explained by workplace frustration.
Workplace frustration is significant, but
weak relationship with workplace deviant behavior. The regression equation is as

follows: Y (workplace deviant behavior) = 18.48 + .69X (workplace frustration). With
each one point increase on the Likert-type scale of workplace frustration, the workplace
deviant behavior will increase by .69.
Thus, hypothesis 5b is supported.
A summary
of this simple linear regression is indicated in Table 20.

Table 20
Summary of Simple Linear Regression Analysis for the Prediction of Workplace
Frustration on Workplace Deviant Behavior for Taiwanese Sample
Constant
B
18.45
.69
SE
3.87
.23
Beta
Sig.
.00
.00
.13
For the American sample, workplace deviant behavior had a mean value of 32.52
(SD = 12.69). For the predictor, workplace frustration had a mean value of 15.14 (SD =
3.36). Workplace frustration provided statistically significant explanation of variance in
workplace deviant behavior F (1, 133) = 4.69, p < .05. For the coefficient of
determination (i.e., R2) it was found that 3.4% of the variance in workplace deviant
behavior is explained by workplace frustration.
weak relationship with workplace deviant behavior.
The regression equation is as
follows: Y (workplace deviant behavior) = 21.97 + .69X (workplace frustration). With

each one point increase on the Likert-type scale of workplace frustration, the workplace
deviant behavior will increase by .69.
Thus, hypothesis 5b is supported.
of this simple linear regression is indicated in Table 21.
A summary
53
Table 21
Frustration on Workplace Deviant Behavior for American Sample
Constant
B
21.97
.69
SE
4.98
.32
Beta
.18
Sig.
.00
.03
The hypothesis 6a was to explore the relationship between workplace envy and
turnover intention.
For the Taiwanese sample, turnover intention had a mean value of 8.17 (SD = 3.06).
For the predictor, workplace envy had a mean value of 13.49 (SD = 2.96).
Workplace
envy provided statistically significant explanation of variance in turnover intention F (1,

491) = 30.28, p ,< .05.
For the coefficient of determination (i.e., R2) it was found that
5.8% of the variance in turnover intention is explained by workplace envy.
Workplace
envy is significant, but weak relationship with turnover intention. The regression
equation is as follows: Y (turnover intention) = 4.81 + .24X (workplace envy). With
each one point increase on the Likert-type scale of workplace envy, the turnover intention
will increase by .24.
Thus, hypothesis 6a is supported.
A summary of this simple
linear regression is indicated in Table 22.

Table 22
Turnover Intention for Taiwanese Sample
Constant
Workplace Envy
B
4.81
.24
SE
.62
.04
Beta
.24
Sig.
.00
.00
For the American sample, turnover intention had a mean value of 7.20 (SD = 3.84).
54
For the predictor, workplace envy had a mean value of 10.95 (SD = 3.86).
Workplace
envy provided statistically significant explanation of variance in turnover intention F (1,

133) = 19.25, p ,< .05.
For the coefficient of determination (i.e., R2) it was found that
12.6% of the variance in turnover intention is explained by workplace envy.
The
regression equation is as follows: Y (turnover intention) = 3.33 + .35X (workplace envy).

With each one point increase on the Likert-type scale of workplace envy, the turnover
intention will increase by .35. Thus, hypothesis 6a is supported.
A summary of this
simple linear regression is indicated in Table 23.

Table 23
Turnover Intention for American Sample
Constant
Workplace Envy
B
3.33
.35
SE
.93
.08
Beta
.35
Sig.
.00
.00
The hypothesis 6b was to explore the relationship between workplace frustration and
workplace deviance.
For the Taiwanese sample, turnover intention had a mean value of 8.17 (SD = 3.06).
For the predictor, workplace frustration had a mean value of 16.56 (SD = 2.67).
Workplace frustration provided statistically significant explanation of variance in
turnover intention F (1, 491) = 43.42, p ,< .05.
weak relationship with turnover. For the coefficient of determination (i.e., R2) it was
found that 8.1% of the variance in is explained turnover intention by workplace
frustration. The regression equation is as follow: Y (turnover intention) = 2.75 + .32X
55
(workplace frustration).
With each one point increase on the Likert-type scale of
workplace frustration, the turnover intention will increase by .32.
Thus, hypothesis 6b
is supported. A summary of this simple linear regression is indicated in Table 24.

Table 24
Frustration on Turnover Intention for Taiwanese Sample
Constant
B
2.75
.32
SE
.83
.05
Beta
.28
Sig.
.00
.00
For the American sample, turnover intention had a mean value of 7.20 (SD = 3.84).
For the predictor, workplace frustration had a mean value of 15.14 (SD = 3.36).
Workplace frustration provided statistically significant explanation of variance in
turnover intention F (1, 133) = 23.03, p < .05. For the coefficient of determination (i.e.,
R2) it was found that 14.8% of the variance in is explained turnover intention by
The regression equation is as follow: Y (turnover intention) = .56
+ .43X (workplace frustration). With each one point increase on the Likert-type scale of
workplace frustration, the turnover intention will increase by .43.
Thus, hypothesis 6b
is supported. A summary of this simple linear regression is indicated in Table 25.

Table 25
Frustration on Turnover Intention for American Sample
Constant
B
.56
.43
SE
1.41
.09
All the results are presented in figure 2 and 3.
Beta
.38
Sig.
.68
.00
Dot line represents no significant
56
difference, while solid line represent significant difference.
R2=.20
R2=.12
R2=.14
Interactional
justice
R =.43
Leader-member
R2=.00
exchange
2
R =.11
R2=.17
mm.0
Envy
R2=.14
Workplace
deviant
behavior
Frustration
2
R =.03
Turnover
intention
R2=.03
Equity
sensitivity
Figure 2. Coefficients of determination among variables (For American data)

R2=.03
R2=.05
R2=.00
Interactional
justice
R =.23
Leader-member
R2=.04
exchange
R2=.00
R2=.00
Envy
Frustration
2
R =.03
R2=.01
Turnover
intention
R2=.08
Workplace
deviant
behavior
Equity
sensitivity
Figure 3. Coefficients of determination among variables (For Taiwanese data)

Multiple Regression Analysis
A series of multiple regression analysis were computed to determine the predictors of
workplace deviant behavior and turnover intention.
57
RQ6a: Do interactional fairness, equity sensitivity, leadermember exchange, envy and

frustration significantly predict workplace deviant behavior?
For the Taiwanese sample, the dependent variable (DV) workplace deviant behavior
had a mean value of 29.93 (SD = 13.78). The mean scores for independent variable (IV)
were as follows: interactional justice 21.16 (SD = 4.20), equity sensitivity 59.44 (SD =
8.26), leadermember exchange 38.83 (SD = 5.77), workplace envy 13.49 (SD = 2.96),
and workplace frustration 16.56 (SD = 2.67).
Interactional justice, equity sensitivity,
leadermember exchange (LMX), workplace envy, and workplace frustration provided

statistically significant explanation of variance on workplace deviant behavior F (5, 487)
= 17.48, p < .05, showing that these career related variables (i.e., interactional justice,
equity sensitivity, leadermember exchange, workplace envy, and workplace frustration)
were good predictors of workplace deviant behavior. Additionally, 15.2% of the
variance in workplace deviant behavior was explained by the proposed model
(interactional justice, equity sensitivity, leadermember exchange, workplace envy, and
workplace frustration).
The regression equation was Y = 51.88 - .38X1 (interactional
justice) - .53X2 (equity sensitivity) + .31X3 (LMX). There is a evidence of potential

mediating variables.
These results suggested that all variables (interactional justice,
equity sensitivity, LMX, workplace envy, and workplace frustration) influence workplace
deviant behavior, but the workplace envy and workplace frustration are not able to
contribute enough to predict workplace deviant behavior.
When examining the correlation matrix, multicollinearity is not a concern in this
analysis. The tolerances for all five IVs interactional justice (.69), equity sensitivity
58
(.80), leadermember exchange (.71), workplace envy (.67), and workplace frustration
(.75), were above respectable limits of .3 and close to 1 with the variance inflation factors
(VIF) corroborating this evidence. The collinearity diagnostics show that workplace
frustration (35.5) overlap in the contribution of the percentages to the model, whereas the
other four condition indices are within acceptable limits (< 30). Table 26 presents the
summary from this multiple regression Analysis.
Table 26
The Predictors of Deviant Behavior for the Taiwanese Sample
Constant
Equity Sensitivity
Workplace Envy
B
51.88
-.38
-.53
.31
.16
.20
SE
7.39
.16
.07
.11
.23
.24
Beta ()
Sig.
.00
.02
.00
.00
.48
.40
-.11
-.32
.13
.03
.04
For the American sample, for the RQ6a, the dependent variable (DV) workplace
deviant behavior had a mean value of 32.52 (SD = 12.69). The mean scores for
independent variable (IV) were as follows: interactional justice 24.32 (SD = 4.18), equity
sensitivity 30.90 (SD = 4.46), leadermember exchange 44.49 (SD = 7.39), workplace
envy 10.95 (SD = 3.86), and workplace frustration 15.14 (SD = 3.36).
Interactional
justice, equity sensitivity, leadermember exchange (LMX), workplace envy, and

workplace frustration did not provide statistically significant explanation of variance on
workplace deviant behavior F (5, 129) = 1.99, p > .05, showing that these career related
variables (i.e., interactional justice, equity sensitivity, leadermember exchange,
workplace envy, and workplace frustration) were not good predictors of workplace
59
deviant behavior.
Table 27 presents the summary from this multiple regression
Analysis.
Table 27
The Predictors of Deviant Behavior for the American Sample
Constant
Equity Sensitivity
Workplace Envy
B
45.27
-.58
-.40
.19
-.22
.52
SE
13.46
.38
.26
.20
.32
.36
Beta ()
-.19
-.14
.11
-.06
.13
Sig.
.00
.12
.12
.32
.49
.14
RQ6b: Do interactional fairness, equity sensitivity, leadermember exchange, envy and

frustration significantly predict turnover intention?
For the Taiwanese sample, for the RQ6b, the dependent variable (DV) turnover
intention had a mean of 8.17 (SD = 3.06). The means scores for five independent
variable (IV) were: interactional justice 21.16 (SD = 4.20), equity sensitivity 59.44 (SD =
8.26), leadermember exchange 38.83 (SD = 5.77), workplace envy 13.49 (SD = 2.96),
and workplace frustration 16.56 (SD = 2.67).
leadermember exchange (LMX), workplace envy, and workplace frustration predicted

statistically significant explanation of variance on turnover intention F (5, 487) = 25.18, p
< .05, showing that there five variables (i.e., interactional justice, equity sensitivity,
leadermember exchange, workplace envy, and workplace frustration) were good
predictors of turnover intention. Additionally, 20.5% of the variance in turnover
intention was explained by the proposed model (interactional justice, equity sensitivity,
leadermember exchange, workplace envy, and workplace frustration). The regression
60
equation was Y = 12.86 - .07X1 (interactional justice) - .08X2 (equity sensitivity) - .08X3
(LMX) + .30X5 (workplace frustration). There is a evidence of potential mediating
variables. These results suggested that all variables (interactional justice, equity
sensitivity, LMX, workplace envy, and workplace frustration) influence turnover
intention. Workplace envy is not able to contribute enough to predict turnover
intention.
(.75) are respectable limits above .3 and close to 1 with the variance inflation factors
other four condition indices are within acceptable limits (< 30).
Table 28 presents the

Table 28
The Predictors of Turnover Intention for the Taiwanese Sample
Constant
Equity Sensitivity
Workplace Envy
B
12.86
-.07
-.08
-.08
.01
.30
SE
1.59
.03
.01
.02
.05
.50
Beta ()
-.09
-.23
-.15
.01
.26
Sig.
.00
.04
.00
.00
.77
.00
For the American sample, the dependent variable (DV) turnover intention had a
mean of 7.20 (SD = 3.84). The means scores for five independent variable (IV) were:
61
interactional justice 24.32 (SD = 4.18), equity sensitivity 30.90 (SD = 4.46),
leadermember exchange 44.49 (SD = 7.39), workplace envy 10.95 (SD = 3.86), and
workplace frustration 15.14 (SD = 3.36).
leadermember exchange (LMX), workplace envy, and workplace frustration predicted

statistically significant explanation of variance on turnover intention F (5, 129) = 12.54, p
< .05, showing that there five variables (i.e., interactional justice, equity sensitivity,
leadermember exchange, workplace envy, and workplace frustration) were good
predictors of turnover intention. Additionally, 32.7% of the variance in turnover
intention was explained by the proposed model (interactional justice, equity sensitivity,
leadermember exchange, workplace envy, and workplace frustration). The regression
equation was Y = 10.66 - .13X1 (equity sensitivity) - .17X2 (LMX) + .34X3 (workplace
frustration). There is a evidence of potential mediating variables.
These results
suggested that all variables (interactional justice, equity sensitivity, LMX, workplace
envy, and workplace frustration) influence turnover intention.
Interactional justice and
workplace envy are not able to contribute enough to predict turnover intention.
(.78) are respectable limits above .3 and close to 1 with the variance inflation factors
other four condition indices are within acceptable limits (< 30). Table 29 presents the
62

Table 29
The Predictors of Turnover Intention for the American Sample
Constant
Equity Sensitivity
Workplace Envy
B
10.66
.07
-.13
-.17
.12
.34
SE
3.46
.09
.06
.05
.08
.09
Beta ()
.08
-.15
-.33
.12
.30
Sig.
.00
.43
.05
.00
.13
.00
Independent Samples t test

The t test was conducted to determine whether these variables varied on gender,
working status, job title, and location as below.
For the Taiwanese gender difference, results revealed that the means for male and
female on workplace deviant behavior (t = 1.98, p < .05) were statistically different.
Male reported higher mean score in workplace deviant behavior (M = 32.11) than female
(M = 29.06).
However, no significant difference was found in interactional justice,
equity sensitivity, leadermember exchange, workplace envy, workplace frustration and

turnover intention between male and female.
Table 30 indicates the summary of the
t-test results.
Table 30
Gender Differences on Seven Variables of Taiwanese Hotel Employees
Measure
Equity Sensitivity
Gender
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Mean
21.53
21.07
58.89
59.64
39.64
38.52
Sig. (2-tailed)
1.10
.26
-.82
.41
1.74
.08
63
Table 30 continued
Measure
Workplace Envy
Gender
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Turnover
Male
Female
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Mean
13.74
13.38
16.67
16.51
32.11
29.06
7.86
8.28
Sig. (2-tailed)
1.19
.23
.58
.55
1.98
.04*
-1.38
.16
For the American gender difference, results revealed that the means for male and
female on workplace deviant behavior (t = 2.36, p < .05) were statistically different.
Male reported higher mean score in workplace deviant behavior (M = 37.28) than female
(M = 30.45).
However, no significant difference was found in interactional justice,
equity sensitivity, leadermember exchange, workplace envy, workplace frustration and

turnover intention between male and female.
Table 31 indicates the summary of the
t-test results.
Table 31
Gender Differences on Seven Variables of American Hotel Employees
Measure
Gender
Male
Female
Equity Sensitivity
Male
Female
Male
Female
Workplace Envy
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Turnover
Male
Female
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Mean
24.90
24.03
30.08
31.30
44.90
44.28
10.69
13.38
18.49
17.86
37.28
30.45
7.77
7.00
Sig. (2-tailed)
1.07
.28
-1.43
.15
.43
.66
-.66
.50
.99
.32
2.36
.02*
1.04
.29
64
For the Taiwanese working status, results revealed that the means for part-time and
full-time employees on interactional justice (t = -3.00, p < .05), equity sensitivity (t = 2.54,
p < .05), leadermember exchange (t = -2.50, p < .05), workplace envy (t = -3.34, p < .05),
and workplace frustration (t = -2.18, p < .05) were statistically different.
Part-time
employees had higher interactional justice (M = 22.57), leadermember exchange (M =

40.44), and workplace envy (M = 14.60), whereas full-time employees had higher equity
sensitivity (M = 59.79) and workplace frustration (M = 17.22).
However, no significant
difference was found in workplace deviant behavior and turnover intention between
working status.
Table 32 indicates the summary from this t-test.
Table 32
Working Status Differences on Seven Variables of Taiwanese Hotel Employees
Measure
Working Status
Full-Time
Part-Time
Full-Time
Equity Sensitivity
Part-Time
Full-Time
Part-Time
Full-Time
Workplace Envy
Part-Time
Full-Time
Part-Time
Full-Time
Part-Time
Full-Time
Turnover Intention
Part-Time
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Mean
20.96
22.57
59.79
57.04
38.56
40.44
13.33
14.60
17.22
16.46
29.75
31.26
8.24
7.78
Sig. (2-tailed)
-3.00
.00***
2.54
.01*
-2.50
.01*
-3.34
.00***
-2.18
.02*
-8.36
.40
1.15
.25
For the American working status, results revealed that the means for part-time and
full-time employees on interactional justice (t = -2.16, p < .05) were statistically different.
Full-time employees had higher interactional justice (M = 25.54).
However, no
significant difference was found in equity sensitivity, leadermember exchange,
65
workplace envy, workplace frustration, workplace deviant behavior, and turnover

intention between working status.
Table 33
Working Status Differences on Seven Variables of American Hotel Employees
Measure
Working Status
Full-Time
Part-Time
Full-Time
Equity Sensitivity
Part-Time
Full-Time
Part-Time
Full-Time
Workplace Envy
Part-Time
Full-Time
Part-Time
Full-Time
Part-Time
Full-Time
Turnover Intention
Part-Time
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Mean
25.54
23.45
31.82
31.12
46.26
43.42
10.48
10.82
17.86
17.58
31.52
34.09
6.98
6.52
Sig. (2-tailed)
-2.16
.03*
-.73
.46
-1.81
.07
.41
.68
-.38
.70
.91
.36
-.54
.58
For the Taiwanese job positions, results revealed that the means for
supervisors/managers and employees on workplace envy (t = -3.81, p < .05) were
statistically different. Employees had stronger workplace envy (M = 13.72) than
supervisors/managers.
However, no significant difference was found in interactional
justice, equity sensitivity, leadermember exchange, workplace frustration, workplace

deviant behavior, and turnover intention between supervisors/managers and employees.
Table 34 indicates the summary results from t-test.
Table 34
Job Positions Differences on Seven Variables of Taiwanese Hotel Employees
Measure
Equity Sensitivity
Job Positions
Employees
Employees
Mean
21.31
21.18
60.86
59.10
Sig. (2-tailed)
.27
.78
1.83
.06
66
Table 34 continued
Measure
Job Positions
Employees
Workplace Envy
Employees
Employees
Employees
Turnover Intention
Employees
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Mean
39.81
38.62
12.43
13.72
16.14
16.65
30.37
29.83
8.03
8.19
Sig. (2-tailed)
-3.81
.00***
-1.66
.09
.34
.73
-.44
.66
-3.81
.00***
For the American job positions, results revealed that the means for
supervisors/managers and employees on equity sensitivity (t = 3.31, p < .05),
leadermember change (t = 3.33, p < .05), workplace envy (t = -2.20, p < .05), and
workplace deviant behavior (t = -2.70, p < .05) were statistically different.
Supervisors
had higher equity sensitivity (M = 33.31) and leadermember exchange (M = 48.45),

whereas employees had higher workplace envy (M = 11.42) and workplace deviance (M =
33.85).
However, no significant difference was found in interactional justice, workplace
frustration, and turnover intention.
Table 35 indicates the summary results from t-test.
Table 35
Job Positions Differences on Seven Variables of American Hotel Employees
Measure
Equity Sensitivity
Workplace Envy
Job Positions
Employees
Employees
Employees
Employees
Employees
Employees
Mean
25.14
24.06
33.31
30.27
48.45
43.41
9.66
11.42
18.55
17.89
28.07
33.85
Sig. (2-tailed)
1.21
.22
3.31
.00***
3.33
.00***
-2.20
.03*
.94
-2.70
.34
.00***
67
Table 35 continued
Measure
Job Positions
Turnover Intention
Employees
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Mean
6.07
7.54
t
-1.82
Sig. (2-tailed)
.07
For the location, results revealed that the means on interactional justice (t = -2.67, p
< .05) and leadermember exchange (t = -3.54, p < .05) were statistically different
between Southern hotels and Northern hotels.
Participants in Northern hotels
employees had higher interactional justice (M = 21.99) and leadermember exchange (M

= 40.34) than Southern hotels employees.
However, no significant difference was found
in equity sensitivity, workplace envy, workplace frustration, workplace deviant behavior,

and turnover intention between Northern hotels employees and Southern hotels
employees.
Table 36
Locations Differences on Seven Variables of Hotel Employees
Measure
Equity Sensitivity
Workplace Envy
Turnover Intention
Locations
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
South
North
Mean
20.85
21.99
59.56
59.14
38.28
40.34
13.50
13.47
16.46
16.85
29.96
29.85
8.22
8.05
t
-2.67
.49
-3.54
Sig. (2-tailed)
.00***
.62
.00***
.08
.93
-1.43
.15
.47
.93
.22
.58
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
ANOVA
Several ANOVAs were conducted to determine whether these variables varied among
68
educational levels, department, marital status, and perceptions of salary as below.

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was computed to examine the variances among
different educational levels.
For the Taiwan sample, Levene's test was utilized to examine the homogeneity of
variances. There were no differences in variances in interactional justice (p = .33),
equity sensitivity (p = .06), leadermember exchange (LMX) (p = .89), and workplace
envy (p = .93), which indicates homogeneity of variance.
The results of ANOVA showed a statically significant difference among the
educational levels (e.g., high school, vocational high school, university, and graduate
school) and LMX, F (3, 487) = 3.50, p < .05 and workplace envy, F (3, 487) = .87, p
< .05 were statistically significant.
Furthermore, the Tukey HSD test was performed to examine which group caused the
difference.
Vocational high school differed significantly from graduate school (p < .05)
and university (p < .05) in LMX.
Vocational high school and graduate school (p < .05)
differed significantly in workplace envy.
Table 37 indicates the summary from this
ANOVA.
Table 37
ANOVA Results of Educational Level Differences on Seven Variables of Taiwanese Hotel
Employees
Measure
Between groups
Within groups
Total
df
SS
MS
3
487
490
74.42
8412.01
8486.44
24.80
17.27
1.43
.23
69
Table 37 continued
Measure
Equity Sensitivity
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Workplace Envy
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Turnover Intention
Between groups
Within groups
Total
df
SS
MS
3
487
490
436.92
33097.25
33534.18
145.64
67.96
2.14
.09
3
487
490
344.67
15976.29
16320.96
114.89
32.80
3.50
.01
3
487
490
74.93
4225.67
4300.60
24.97
8.67
2.87
.03
3
487
490
19.87
3447.10
3466.97
6.62
7.07
.93
.42
3
487
490
430.74
93003.76
93434.50
143.58
190.97
.75
.52
3
487
490
27.14
4577.14
4604.28
9.04
9.39
.96
.41
For the American sample, Levene's test was utilized to examine the homogeneity of
variances.
There were no differences in variances in interactional justice (p = .68),
equity sensitivity (p = .74), leadermember exchange (LMX) (p = .63), workplace envy

(p = .52), workplace frustration (p = .18), and turnover intention (p = .70), which
indicates homogeneity of variance.
The results of ANOVA showed there are no
statically significant difference among the educational levels (e.g., high school,
vocational high school, university, and graduate school) for seven variables (e.g.,
interactional justice, equity sensitivity, leadermember exchange, workplace envy,
workplace frustration, workplace deviant behavior, and turnover intention).
Table 38
70
indicates the summary from this ANOVA.

Table 38
ANOVA Results of Educational Level Differences on Seven Variables of American Hotel
Employees
Measure
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Equity Sensitivity
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Workplace Envy
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
df
SS
MS
3
128
131
36.49
2296.56
2333.06
12.16
17.94
.67
.56
3
128
131
31.45
2624.06
2655.51
10.48
20.50
.51
.67
3
128
131
53.86
7226.94
7280.81
17.95
56.46
.31
.81
3
128
131
57.84
1890.96
1948.81
19.28
14.77
1.30
.27
3
128
131
40.52
1397.20
1437.72
13.50
10.91
1.23
.29
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was computed to examine the variances

among different departments.
For the Taiwanese sample, Levene's test was utilized to examine the homogeneity of
(p = .16), workplace frustration (p = .81), workplace deviant behavior (p = .38), and
turnover intention (p = .18) , which indicates homogeneity of variance.
A statistically significant difference was found among the eight departments (i.g.,
accounting, and maintenance and engineering) for interactional justice, F (7, 483) = 6.75,
71
p < .05, equity sensitivity, F (7, 483) = 2.32, p < .05, LMX, F (7, 483) = 3.87, p < .05,
and workplace frustration, F (7, 483) = 3.53, p < .05.
difference.
Accounting differed significantly from front desk, housekeeping, food &
beverage, purchasing, and other department in interactional justice.
Accounting differed
significantly from front desk, housekeeping, food & beverage, and other department in
Accounting differed significantly from housekeeping, food &
beverage, and purchasing in LMX. There are no department differences in equity

sensitivity.
Table 39 indicates the summary from this ANOVA.
Table 39
ANOVA Results of Department Differences on Seven Variables of Taiwanese Hotel
Employees
Measure
Between Groups
Within Group
Total
Equity Sensitivity
Between Groups
Within Group
Total
Between Groups
Within Group
Total
Workplace Envy
Between Groups
Within Group
Total
Between Groups
Within Group
Total
df
SS
MS
7
483
490
756.09
7934.13
8690.23
108.01
16.42
6.57
.00
7
483
490
1092.26
32467.26
33559.52
156.03
67.22
2.32
.02
7
483
490
873.44
15538.86
16412.30
124.77
32.17
3.87
.00
7
483
490
45.57
4285.15
4330.72
6.51
8.87
.73
.64
7
483
490
162.39
3886.23
4048.63
23.20
8.04
3.53
.00
72
Table 39 continued
Measure
Between Groups
Within Group
Total
Turnover Intention
Between Groups
Within Group
Total
df
SS
MS
7
483
490
495.47
92876.79
93376.26
70.78
192.29
.36
.92
7
483
490
102.32
4498.54
4600.86
14.61
9.31
1.56
.14
variances.
There were no differences in variances in equity sensitivity (p = .10),
leadermember exchange (LMX) (p = .57), workplace envy (p = .38), and workplace

deviant behavior (p = .85), which indicates homogeneity of variance.
There are no
statistically significant difference was found among the eight departments for seven
variables (e.g., interactional justice, equity sensitivity, leadermember exchange,
workplace envy, workplace frustration, workplace deviant behavior, and turnover
intention). Table 40 indicates the summary from this ANOVA.
Table 40
ANOVA Results of Department Differences on Seven Variables of American Hotel
Employees
Measure
Between Groups
Within Group
Total
Equity Sensitivity
Between Groups
Within Group
Total
Between Groups
Within Group
Total
df
SS
MS
7
123
130
222.26
2109.12
2331.38
31.75
17.14
1.85
.08
7
123
130
162.47
2492.15
2654.62
23.21
20.26
1.14
.33
7
123
130
283.96
6924.69
7208.65
40.56
56.29
.72
.65
73
Table 40 continued
Measure
Workplace Envy
Between Groups
Within Group
Total
Between Groups
Within Group
Total
Between Groups
Within Group
Total
Turnover Intention
Between Groups
Within Group
Total
df
SS
MS
7
123
130
188.08
1759.79
1947.87
26.86
14.30
1.87
.07
7
123
130
59.38
1377.42
1436.80
8.48
11.19
.75
.62
7
123
130
1103.79
20292.26
21396.06
157.68
164.97
.95
.46
7
123
130
81.14
1864.86
1950.01
12.16
15.16
.80
.58
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was computed to examine the variances

among different marital status.
equity sensitivity (p = .23), leadermember exchange (p = .40), workplace envy (p = .36),
workplace frustration (p = .35), workplace deviant behavior (p = .16), and turnover
intention (p = .51), which indicates homogeneity of variance.
A statistically significant difference was found among the marital status (i.e., single,
married without children, married with children, divorced without children, divorced with
children, and widow) for equity sensitivity, F (5, 485) = 5.07, p < .05, workplace
frustration, F (5, 485) = 4.50, p < .05, and turnover intention, F (5, 485) = 4.55, p < .05.
Table 41 indicates the summary from this ANOVA.
74
Table 41
ANOVA Results of Marital Status Differences on Seven Variables of Taiwanese Hotel
Employees
Measure
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Equity Sensitivity
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Workplace Envy
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Turnover Intention
Between groups
Within groups
Total
df
SS
MS
5
485
490
84.01
8402.42
8486.44
16.80
17.32
.97
.43
5
485
490
1667.94
31866.23
33534.18
333.58
65.70
5.07
.00
5
485
490
141.23
16179.72
16320.96
28.24
33.36
.84
.51
5
485
490
67.84
4232.76
4300.60
16.29
7.16
1.55
.17
5
485
490
116.14
3350.82
3466.97
23.23
6.90
4.50
.00
5
485
490
700.47
92734.02
93434.50
140.09
19.20
.73
.59
5
485
490
206.38
4397.90
4604.28
41.27
9.06
4.52
.00
variances.
There were no differences in variances in interactional justice (p = .18),

(p = .54), workplace deviant behavior (p = .63), and turnover intention (p = .09), which
indicates homogeneity of variance.
There are no statistically significant difference was
found among the marital status for seven variables (e.g., interactional justice, equity
75
sensitivity, leadermember exchange, workplace envy, workplace frustration, workplace

deviant behavior, and turnover intention). Table 42 indicates the summary from this
ANOVA.
Table 42
ANOVA Results of Marital Status Differences on Seven Variables of American Hotel
Employees
Measure
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Equity Sensitivity
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Workplace Envy
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Turnover Intention
Between groups
Within groups
Total
df
SS
MS
4
127
131
29.15
2303.90
2333.06
7.28
18.14
.40
.43
4
127
131
162.15
2493.36
2655.51
40.53
19.63
2.06
.00
4
127
131
128.92
7151.88
7280.81
32.23
56.31
.57
.51
4
127
131
44.11
1904.69
1948.81
11.02
14.99
.73
.17
4
127
131
30.61
1407.11
1437.72
7.65
11.08
.69
.00
4
127
131
290.43
21288.44
21578.87
72.60
167.62
.43
.59
5
485
490
38.73
1914.44
1953.18
9.68
15.07
.64
.00
Oneway analysis of variance (ANOVA) was computed to examine the variances

among different perceptions of salary.
76

leadermember exchange (LMX) (p = .07), workplace envy (p = .52), workplace
frustration (p = .78), workplace deviant behavior (p = .40), and turnover intention (p
= .52), which indicates homogeneity of variance.
A statistically significant difference was found among the perceptions of salary (i.e.,
underpaid, fair, and overpaid) for interactional justice, F (2, 487) = 7.20, p < .05, LMX, F
(2, 487) = 7.39, p < .05, workplace frustration, F (2, 487) = 4.33, p < .05, and turnover
intention, F (2, 487) = 10.41, p < .05.
difference.
Underpaid and fair differ significantly in interactional justice and workplace
frustration. Underpaid also differ significantly from fair and overpaid in LMX.
Table
43 indicates the summary from this ANOVA.

Table 43
ANOVA Results of Perception of Salary Differences on Seven Variables of Taiwanese
Hotel Employees
Measure
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Equity Sensitivity
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Workplace Envy
Between groups
Within groups
Total
df
SS
MS
2
487
489
243.46
8232.71
8476.18
121.73
16.90
7.20
.00
2
487
489
300.07
33233.77
33533.85
150.03
68.24
2.19
.11
2
487
489
480.77
15836.80
16317.58
240.38
32.51
7.39
.00
2
487
489
42.79
4257.57
4300.36
21.39
8.74
2.44
.08
77
Table 43 continued
Measure
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Turnover Intention
Between groups
Within groups
Total
df
SS
MS
2
487
489
64.57
3929.89
3994.46
32.28
8.07
4.33
.04
2
487
489
865.61
92544.54
93410.16
432.80
190.03
2.27
.10
2
487
489
188.83
4414.74
4603.58
94.41
9.06
10.41
.00
(p = .96), workplace frustration (p = .60), workplace deviant behavior (p = .64), and
turnover intention (p = .32), which indicates homogeneity of variance.
A statistically significant difference was found among the perceptions of salary (i.e.,
underpaid, fair, and overpaid) for workplace deviant behavior, F (2, 128) = 4.41, p < .05,
and turnover intention, F (2, 128) = 5.83, p < .05.
difference.
Underpaid and overpaid differ significantly in workplace deviance.
44 indicates the summary from this ANOVA.
Table
78
Table 44
ANOVA Results of Perception of Salary Differences on Seven Variables of American Hotel
Employees
Measure
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Equity Sensitivity
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Workplace Envy
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
Between groups
Within groups
Total
df
SS
MS
2
128
130
88.62
2242.76
2331.38
44.31
17.52
2.52
.08
2
128
130
78.26
2576.36
2654.62
39.13
20.12
1.94
.14
2
128
130
272.14
6936.51
7208.65
136.07
54.19
2.51
.08
2
128
130
26.80
1921.07
1947.87
13.40
15.00
.89
.41
2
128
130
65.94
1370.86
1436.80
32.97
10.71
3.07
.04
2
128
130
1381.82
20014.23
21396.06
690.91
156.36
4.41
.01
Open-Ended Questions
The survey included four open-ended questions asking: (1) How supervisors
perceive they treat employees; (2) how employees perceive retreatment; (3) how do
employees react to unfair treatment; and (4) list examples of any workplace deviance
they have heard, seen, and experienced. These questions were added as to understand
deeply regarding supervisors and employees' interaction, as well as the specific
workplace deviance that may not include in the survey instrument.
Results are indicated in Table 45. A large proportion of American participants (n =
79
98, 72%) and Taiwanese participants (n = 307, 62.5%) responded.
In terms of question
one, most of American supervisors (n = 20, 100%) and Taiwanese supervisors (n = 42,
100%) indicated that they actually provide healthy work environment and use different
approaches to maintain fair treatment to employees (e.g., communication and support).
The second question asked employees perceptions on how they were being treated.
The majority of American employees (n = 70, 89%) and Taiwanese employees (n = 218,
93%) perceive reasonable treatment from supervisor.
The third question asked participants what they will do if they perceive unfair
treatment.
The majority of American employees (n = 63, 71%) and Taiwanese
employees (n = 76, 55%) have same reaction (e.g., report to supervisors).

For the last question about workplace deviance, only a small of the employees
answered it. Most of Taiwanese employees (n = 18, 62.2%) stated that when making
mistakes, they never think it is their mistakes.
answer this question.
However, only two American employees
Participants' responses to open-ended questions can be seen in
Table 45.
Table 45
Summary Table of Participants' Responses to Open-Ended Questions
Questions
1. How supervisors
treat employees?
Responses
Taiwanese employees
Give fair treatment to employee
Care about employees' working life and personal life.
Treat employees like family.
When employees meet difficulty, give them assistance.
Do not insist own opinions, listen or apply employees'
opinion
Communicate with employees regularly.
To see things through other people's eyes.
Do not bring personal emotion influence employees.
16
8
6
5
3
80
40
30
25
15
2
1
1
10
5
5
80
Table 45 continued
Questions
2. How employees
perceive treatment?
3. How do they react to

unfair treatment?
Responses
American employees
Fair treatment
Treat with respect
Fair treat and as respect
Good treatment
Try to be supportive and coach the agent to make the right
decision.
Taiwanese employees
Good treatment with encouragement, respect and support.
When facing problems, supervisors give assistance.
Receive bad treatment.
Some employees receive bad treatment because his/her
supervisor is a temperamental person.
It is unfair because the supervisors assign different content
for employees.
American employees
Good treatment
Treatment with respect
Fair treatment
Treat with respect and as respect
Like family
Kindness
Bad treatment
Unfair treatment
My supervisor is always open to my opinions and
suggestions.
Give assistance when needed.
They act like I don't do enough.
Not much interaction.
Not always as expected.
Taiwanese employees
Address to supervisors.
Complain about coworkers or friends.
They would do the best as they can.
If it is the serious situation, quit the job.
Only a small number of employees think if it is not serious,
they will endure it.
American employees
Report to manager
Quit the job
Speak up
Express my feelings about it to the person who treated my
unfairly.
Do nothing
Let it go
Do my job the best I can
Take it as constructive criticism
Complain to someone
I bite my tongue but if it gets excessive I will say something.
9
8
1
1
1
45
40
5
5
5
150
68
68
28
15
22
21
11
6
2
2
1
1
1
30
19
15
8
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
76
23
21
16
1
55
16
15
11
0
63
16
5
2
67
17
5
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
81
Table 45 continued
Questions
4. List examples of any
deviant behaviors at
workplace.
Responses
Taiwanese employees
When making mistakes, they never think it was their
mistakes.
Doing personal business during work time.
Flatter supervisors.
Edge out coworkers.
Pretend that they are busy at work.
Write blackmail to blacken coworkers.
Provide low service quality to customers.
American employees
Just people not doing their jobs.
Employees regularly give out the wrong rate for rooms.
18
56
7
3
1
1
1
1
21
9
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
The main objectives of this study were to investigate whether (1) perceived fairness
would improve the relationships between supervisors and employees; (2) equity
sensitivity could predict the quality of the relationships between supervisors and
employees; (3) the relationship between supervisors and employees has an impact on
workplace emotions; (4) negative emotions in the workplace can predict negative
behaviors; (5) unfairness, envy and frustration in employees might inspire employee
turnover intention and increase the chance that those employees might engage in deviant
workplace behavior; and (6) demographic characteristics and background information
influence fairness as perceived by employees, equity sensitivity, the quality of
supervisoremployee relationships, negative emotions, workplace deviance, and turnover
intentions.
The results of this research indicate that employees and supervisors do not
perceive fairness differently; that perceived fairness can improve the relationship between
supervisors and employees; and that fairness, equity sensitivity, supervisoremployee
relationships (LMX), workplace envy, and workplace frustration were all found to have
predictive power with regard to both workplace deviance and turnover intentions.
The
results of this research may be useful for human resource managers with an interest in
improving the working life quality of employees, and reducing negative behaviors.
82
83
Fairness and LMX

The results of this study indicate that the supervisoremployee relationships can be
improved when employees perceive fair treatment from supervisors (H1; RQ1).
This is
consistent with Burton, Sablynski, and Sekiguchi's (2008) and Fein, Tziner, Lusky, and
Palachys (2013) research.
Fein et al.s (2013) research revealed that of all three
organizational justices only interactional justice could predict LMX because interactional
justice is related to the interpersonal treatment between supervisors and employees.
As
suggested by Bhal's (2006) research, both social exchange theory and Adams equity
theory can be used to explain interactional justice and the quality of supervisoremployee
relationships. Employees who are treated fairly and positively tend to reciprocate in kind
through hard work.
In the current research, the two items regarding LMX that received
the highest mean scores are "if my manager does something for me, I will return the favor
at some point" and " When my supervisor gives me support, I feel I owe it to him or her
to return the favor." The golden rule, commonly phrased as Do unto others as you
would have them do unto you" or "Treat others the way you want to be treated" can be
found in almost every culture or religious tradition, and seems to apply as a sort of
universal standard for decent behavior.
Another item which received a high mean score
is "I give more than I take with my supervisor."
This phenomenon can be explained
through Adam's (1963) equity theory because people value equality.
People seek
equilibrium between the amount of work they put in to a job and the benefit they receive.
Previous research suggests that good supervisoremployee relationships can increase job
satisfaction (Chuang, Yin, & Dellmann-Jenkins, 2009; Duchon et al., 1986; Fisk &
84
Friesen, 2012), but no evidence shows that job satisfaction increases satisfaction in
supervisoremployee relationships.
However, if employees are satisfied with the
treatment that their supervisors give them, a strong connection can be built (Volmer,
Niessen, Spurk, Linz, & Abele, 2011).
A good supervisoremployee relationship can
assist employees in developing positive attitudes at work and help build cohesive teams
(Fein et al., 2013; Chuang, Dean, & Dellmann-Jenkins, 2009).
One of the ways these
relationships can be strengthened is through fair treatment from supervisors, an idea that
is confirmed by the results of this study.
In response to open-ended questions regarding
employeesupervisor relationships, employees said that such relationships improved

when they could freely communicate with supervisors, without any pressure, and when
supervisors opened up to them like friends or even family.
In the current research, equity sensitivity did not appear to have any predictive
power regarding supervisoremployee relationships (H2; RQ2).
Each individual
employee senses and reacts to work environments or situations differently depending on

their attitudes toward reciprocity. As noted by Huseman et al. (1987), some people
prefer receiving benefits that are equal to their contributions (this group is referred to s
equity sensitive), others prefer receiving more than they contribute (this group is referred
to as entitled), and others prefer contributing more and receiving less (this group is
referred to as benevolent). Employees belonging to the benevolent group are honest,
hardworking, diligent, and willing to contribute positively to the workplace regardless of
their relationships with managers.
In this study, these employees can be identified by
high scores on the following items: "at work, my greatest concern is whether or not I am
85
doing the best job I can" and "a job which requires me to be busy during the day is better
than a job which allows me a lot of loafing."
It is a good phenomenon in the workplace
employees have sense of responsibility and know what they have to do at work. On the
other hand, other employees may want to enjoy their time at work, do not mind receiving
assistance from others, or simply work the minimum needed to keep the job; employees
have varying levels of sensitivity to equity issues.
In spite of their varying levels of
equity sensitivity, maintaining good relationship with supervisors is essential in the

workplace. Supervisors can act as a resource for employees by sharing knowledge
based on lengthier work experience, and helping employees to understand how to
improve their job performance and increase opportunities for promotion.
In addition,
the personal connections established with supervisors could be helpful for an employees'
future career prospects.
Often an employee that enjoys a good relationship with his or
her supervisor may be the first candidate to come to their supervisor's mind when an
opportunity for promotion arises.
Fairness, LMX, and Negative Emotions
The results of the current study indicate that perceived fairness can predict
workplace envy (H3a; RQ3) while supervisoremployee relationships can predict
workplace frustration (H4b; RQ4).
The results for H3a were consistent with previous
research (Lam & Chen, 2012). Envy and frustration are common workplace emotions
that are not welcomed by any company that values harmony and cooperative work teams
within the organization (Baillien, Neyens, De Witte, & De Cuyper, 2009; Kim et al.,
2010).
While both of these factors are harmful to organizations, factors that precede and
86
co-occur with envy and frustration remain underexplored.
Results from this study
provide evidence that there is a fine line separating envy and frustration.
It appears that
perceived unfairness leads to envy while frustration is a consequence of poor

When making comparisons among their peers,
employees may feel threatened (Schaubroeck & Lam, 2004) and that they are being taken
advantage of if they perceive that they are not being rewarded appropriately (Adam,
1963).
However, it must be noted that employees personality characteristics influence
both envy and frustration in the workplace. For example, employees who could be
described as emulous (those who tend to seek to emulate someone or something) are
more likely to experience envy, leading to a heightened sensitivity to perceived fairness
(Exline & Zell, 2012).
"There are always winners and losers due to competitions" (Tai
et al., p. 107).
Envy is distinct from jealousy.
Envy can be defined as "the feeling experienced
when one lacks something enjoyed by another while jealousy can be defined as the fear
that one might lose someone [or something] to another person" (Smith & Kim, 2007, p.
47).
It appears that envy occurs when an employee perceives uneven contributions and
rewards in the workplace, or when he or she feels that comparable contributions are not
valued equally or rewarded appropriately.
It is important that supervisors are sensitive
to envy among employees as envy influences the quality of customer service that an
employee renders (Susskind, Kacmar, & Borchgrerink, 2003).
H4b deals with supervisoremployee relationships.
It was found that the quality of
these relationships serves as a good indicator for frustration levels in employees.
That is,
87
frustration generally does not arise when an employee experiences a good relationship
with his or her supervisors.
This result is consistent with Tse and Troths' (2013)
research, which suggested that employees experiencing good relationships with their
supervisors are more likely to report positive emotions in the workplace.
According to
social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), when employees perceive their supervisors
positively, they exhibit better job performance, perhaps as a form of reciprocation for
kind treatment from their supervisors, which may in turn help to further strengthen their
relationships. Evidence suggests that supervisors assign important tasks to employees
with whom they share a good relationship, most likely due to increased levels of trust.
It has also been found that encouragement and positive feedback from supervisors
increase employee motivation (Sparr & Sonnentag, 2008). Therefore when employees
perceive that their contributions are valued by their supervisors, they are less likely to
experience frustration.
Numerous studies have documented how negative work outcomes derive from
negative workplace emotions (Khan, Peretti, & Quratulain, 2009; Kim et al., 2010; Lam,
2009).
Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that these emotions impact interpersonal
relationships (Lam, 2009).
In addition to the relationships employees experience with
their immediate supervisors, relationships between coworkers contribute to the working

environment.
Employees that do not get along well with their coworkers may not ask
for help when they encounter problems at work.
This has a profound influence on work
effectiveness due to lack of support, guidance, assistance, and resources.

The results of this study show that perceived fairness can not predict workplace
88
frustration (H3b; RQ3) and supervisoremployee relationships can not predict workplace
envy (H4a; RQ4).
Responses to H3b demonstrate a weak relationship between
perceived unfairness and frustration. When employees perceive injustice, they may feel
angry and raise the issue with their supervisor, seeking explanation for the perceived
injustice (Mulvey, 2010).
However, while the results of this study reveal that people
may feel frustrated when they perceive unfairness, that frustration may not be on a
dramatic or significant level; rather, unfair practices are more likely to give rise to strong
feelings of envy.
Thus, frustration is defined as one of the causes of a type of pressure
that interferes with one's motivation to achieve a desired goal (Spector, 1978).
Frustration may trigger aggressive behaviors or withdrawal behaviors (Appelbaum et al.,
2005).
Frustration is likely to arise when employees meet obstacles at work, have
difficulty achieving a goal, lack the ability to finish what the supervisor asked them to do
or simply experience fear that they can not fulfill a supervisors requirements (Royal,
2008). When employees feel frustrated, these feelings may exert a harmful effect on
work performance (Maier, 1973). When supervisors assign a task to employees,
employees may be required to complete it regardless of the fairness of the task.
According to the results for H4a, supervisoremployee relationship (LMX) can not
predict workplace envy.
This result is not consistent with Kim et al.'s (2010) research
regarding the predictive power of supervisoremployee relationships on workplace envy.

Employees often form a strong attachment to supervisors and organizations.
When an
employee compares his or her task performance, benefits, and supervisoremployee

relationships with those of other employees, it may trigger envy (Kim et al., 2010; Khan
89
et al., 2009; Schaubroeck & Lam, 2004).
Yet when making such comparisons,
employees tend to focus more on task allocation and received benefits rather than on the
supervisoremployee relationship. As a result, supervisoremployee relationships do
not possess a strong predictive power with regard to envy.
Negative Emotions and Negative Behaviors
The results of this study indicate that workplace envy and frustration can predict
both workplace deviant behavior and turnover intentions in employees (H 5a and H 5b; H
6a and H 6b; RQ5). This finding supports that of previous research (Kim et al., 2012;
Mnard et al., 2011).
When employees experience envy, they are likely to exhibit
negative action towards the envied employees (De Vries, 1992). Khan et al. (2009)
pointed out that employees distract themselves from negative emotional feelings of envy
by indulging in some other task where they feel pleasure (p. 3). Thus, in order to
balance their mind, they may gossip at work or commit other deviant behaviors such as
"spending much time fantasizing or daydreaming instead working," or they may "
intentionally worked slower than they could have worked," "put little effort into work,"
and "cursed at someone at work." These items of workplace deviance present common
strategies to cope with negative emotions, and all received high scores in the present
study.
Some employees indicated they would quit a job as a solution to overcome
emotional pressure before it took a toll on their health.
Sandmark and Smedberg (2013)
pointed out that "pressure is a public health issue in modern working life nowadays" (p.
126) and numerous medical studies have shown that negative emotions experienced over
a long duration are harmful to the health of individuals (Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, &
90
Schilling, 1989).
Yet generalizations are difficult to make, as employees display
different reactions to negative emotions.
Most demonstrate a low tolerance to a
stress-inducing situation; some are able to adjust their mindset and develop a positive
attitude.
In many cases, effective coping strategies can help to lower the occurrence of
negative behaviors.
This was evidenced in the research of Welbourne, Eggerth, Hartley,
Andrew, and Sanchez (2007), which suggested that successful coping strategies are
highly beneficial to the workplace. Skinner, Edge, Altman and Sherwood (2003)
mentioned two types of coping strategies: problem-focused coping and emotion-focused
coping.
Problem-focused coping can be defined as altering the cause of the stress while
emotion-focused coping can be defined as dealing with the feelings resulting from the
stress, rather than changing the stressor (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980). Positive cognitive
restructuring is a problem-focused coping mechanism (e.g., positive thinking and
optimism) focuses on adjusting one's perspective on a stressful situation (Skinner et al.,
2003).
Avoidance coping is an emotion-focused coping technique that deals with stress
through avoidance of the stressor, often leading to negative behaviors such as increased
drug or alcohol use (Webster & Bergman, 1999).
Fairness, LMX, Negative Emotions, and Negative Behaviors
Responses to RQ6a shows that when compared to the other job-related variables
featured in this study (e.g., interactional justice, equity sensitivity, and
supervisoremployee relationships), workplace envy and workplace frustration can not be
the predictive of workplace deviance.
In contrast, perceived unfairness, sensitivity to
equity issues and poor relationships have a profound effect on workplace deviant
91
behaviors.
Workplace deviance can be defined as behaviors that violate the
organizational norms (Robinson & Bennett, 1997), for example bullying, theft, and
withdrawal.
In a negative spin on the norm of reciprocity, employees who perceive
unfair treatment from supervisors are more likely to engage in detrimental behaviors
(Ambrose et al., 2002; Aquino, Lewis, & Bradfield, 1999; El Akremi et al., 2010;
Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007). Although workplace deviance is violated moral behaviors,
it is one kinds of way to eliminate stress and buffer negative emotion (Krischer, Penney,
& Hunter, 2010).
Results for RQ6b shows that when compare to all other job related variables (e.g.,
interactional justice, equity sensitivity, supervisors-employees relationship, and
workplace frustration), workplace envy is not able to contribute enough to predict
turnover intention.
Employees who perceive unfair treatment may feel envy, but envy
does not appear to be a major factor in employee turnover. Generally, employees who
are aggressive will tend to put more effort into changing a situation in the workplace
rather than resign (Van de Ven, Zeelenberg, & Pieters, 2011).
In contrast, employees
who feel that their efforts go unnoticed often choose to resign rather than seek redress.
Gender Differences
In this study, male employees exhibit higher mean scores for workplace deviance
than their female counterparts, demonstrated in responses to item RQ7.
These findings
are consistent with the research of Anwar, Sarwar, and Arif (2011), Gonzalez-Mul,
DeGeest, Kiersch, and Mount (2013), and Fagbohungbe, Akinbode, and Ayodeji (2012).
Gonzalez-Mul et al. (2013) used social role theory and sexual selection theory to support
92
their finding that males are more likely to engage in workplace deviance.
Social role
theory "originated as an effort to understand the causes of sex differences and similarities
in social behavior" (Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000, p. 123).
Sexual selection theory
"concern[s] the development of sex differences in aggression" (Archer, 2009, p. 255).

Males value status more (Archer, 2004) and have lower anti-pressure at work (Wang &
Dai, 2011) than their female counterparts, so males are more likely to engage in
workplace deviance than females.
Numerous studies have also documented gender
differences with regard to perceptions, attitudes, and reactions toward job-related

variables (e.g., Chuang, 2011).
Chuang (2010, 2011) indicated that males tend to
become more reserved and question their ability to overcome job-related barriers,
especially when they sense they possess little control over the situation.
As a result,
they may engage in other deviant behaviors to cope with their stress, such as smoking or
drinking, or simply leave the job.
Background Differences
One of the research questions addressed in this study is related to background
differences and their influence on job-related variables.
In this section we present a
discussion of the findings related to this question.

Job Position
Our results indicate that employees exhibit stronger workplace envy than
supervisors. According to social comparison theory, these comparisons can be
categorized as either upward comparisons (Bandura, 1986) or downward comparisons
(Wills, 1981). Supervisors enjoy a higher position than employees, giving them fewer
93
peers with which to compare themselves.
Wert and Salovey (2004) pointed out that
people tend to compare themselves to those in a position superior to their own, and these
upward comparisons are more likely to cause envy.
Discrepancies in performance, pay,
and relationships with supervisors may all cause envy among employees.
Downward
comparisons are less common as supervisors tend to partly attribute an employees

success to their effective management and leadership as well as their sound
decision-making in hiring the right individual/personnel.
Therefore because an
employees success will reflect well on them, they will not envy lower-level employees.
Instead of experiencing envy, they rejoice in the success of their employees (Loftus, 1988;
McColl-Kennedy & Anderson, 2002).
Job Status
Part-time employees demonstrated higher mean scores on items related to fairness
perception, supervisoremployee relationships, and workplace envy, whereas full-time
employees scored higher on items involving equity sensitivity and workplace frustration.
Seasonal employees make up a large portion of labor force in the hotel industry (Jolliffe
& Farnsworth, 2003).
Due to their limited time at work, part-time employees may
become relatively sensitive to the fairness and relationship issues, which may in turn lead
to envy.
Achieving fairness regarding task assignments is a critical requirement to
secure positive job expectations.
A good relationship with supervisors may be a bonus
that could lead to more work shift opportunities or more income.

Full-time employees have better benefits, steady income, and earn more money than
part-time employees (White, 2011).
These employees may be more sensitive to the
94
equity in terms of their contribution and corresponding rewards from the organization
(e.g., fair amount of supervisory support, interaction, and resources allocation).
When
an employee perceives an imbalance in input and output and deserved recognition,

frustration soon follows.
Supervisory support influences employees' work motivation
and their willingness to help their coworkers (Chen & Chiu, 2008).
Full-time
employees feel they are part of the organization, and as such they are likely to be more
concerned about appropriate recognition and rewards.
Geographic Location
Responses from employees in Northern Taiwan differed significantly from those of
Southern Taiwan with regard to interactional justice and LMX. Cultural differences may
help explain this finding, as was the case in Hsus research (2011). The living expenses
and standard of living in Northern Taiwan is much higher than that of Southern Taiwan.
Taipei, located in Northern Taiwan, is the capital city where people live a fast-paced life
marked by strong ambition and competition.
They may care about fairness and
relationship with supervisors more than employees in the South because unfair treatment
from and poor relationships with supervisors may mean limited opportunities for
promotion.
People in the South tend to be more cooperative and pursue harmony
whereas people in the North tend to be more aggressive in order to survive in their highly
competitive environment (Hsu, 2011).
Educational Background
Results related to the supervisoremployee relationships of employees with a
vocational high school diploma differed significantly from the results of those with
95
university and graduate degrees.

Wilburs (1985) research.
This finding is consistent with that of Lee and
Vocational school emphasizes skills development, whereas
university education focuses more on conceptual development.
Employees who obtain
university degree get the "essential knowledge and skills that they could use in their
careers" (Ministry of Education Taiwan, 2013).
A general perception is that university
degree-holders are more advanced and better qualified employees than vocational
degree-holders. Therefore, employees with vocational degrees may strive harder to
prove their abilities in order to make an impression in the minds of their immediate
employers.
Furthermore, those with vocational degrees have been trained according to a
proactive and community-oriented mindset.
According to Chuang et al. (2009, p.337),
these employees not only seek out opportunity and challenge the environment to
advance their skills, but also view themselves as being part of a brother-in-arms type
of culture, describing a mentor-mentee type of apprenticeship relationship.
This kind
of value system makes maintaining a good relationship with supervisors essential in the
maintenance of a satisfying work environment.
On the contrary, employees with
bachelors and/or masters degree often assume that their supervisors will assign
important tasks to them due to their high level of education.
They believe that if they
perform the task effectively, it will lead to a good relationship with supervisors.
Departments
Accounting departments differed significantly in terms of fairness when compared
to other departments, including the front desk, housekeeping, food and beverage (F&B),
and purchasing departments.
Accounting departments are generally viewed as support
96
centers with responsibilities and duties related to "apportioning department-related

expense and reflecting a financial picture of overall operation" (Karadag & Kim, 2006, p.
155). Purchasing departments are responsible for furniture, fixtures, and equipment
acquisitions to satisfy the demands of customers in order to support the revenue centers.
The front desk, housekeeping, and F&B departments are directly involved in servicing
customers.
The front desk and F&B departments are revenue centers with operational
and service responsibilities.
Both the accounting and purchasing departments are
assigned the duty of cutting expenses where possible (Olaore & Adebisi, 2013).
In
specific situation the accounting department is the gate keeper of the budgetary resources
and therefore has more control than the purchasing department.
Front desk,
housekeeping, and F&B department deliver quality service to guests which is same as
purchasing department buying right quality goods to enhance customers satisfaction, so
this is why those departments have different fairness viewpoints to accounting
department.
In addition to the distribution of operational budget, accounting department
is responsible for payroll which may provide them with opportunity to access to
employee account and may make them more sensitive towards the fair pay issues
although they have different operational responsibilities.
The accounting department showed significantly higher levels of frustration than did
the front desk, housekeeping, and F&B departments.
pressures experienced by the departments.
This could be due to the different
If there are any discrepancies in the accounts,
the accounting department must investigate and correct them.
Mistakes made by this
department influence the overall operation and revenue of the company as well as its
97
financial plan.
These responsibilities appear to exert a heavier stress-load on this
department than those experienced by other departments.

Employees in the accounting department differed significantly from those in the
housekeeping, F&B, and purchasing departments in terms of quality of
Duties in the accounting department are more
task-oriented while the duties of the other departments are more people-oriented.
Employees of the latter departments are more likely to experience negative effects if they
do not have a good relationship with their supervisors. Management in these departments
must make decisions regarding work shifts, promotions, and training opportunities.
These departments are revenue centers engaging in intensive interaction. They not only
interact with hotel guests but also their immediate supervisors and coworkers.
This
intensive interaction can make it more challenging to find the balance of working as a
team while maintaining a finely nuanced hierarchy.
Perception of Pay
In terms of perceptions of fairness and frustration, employees who cited they were
underpaid differed significantly from those who reported they received a fair salary.
Employees who found their salary to be fair appeared to think that the salary was enough
to cover their living expenses, so they did not feel frustrated. However, employees who
reported that they were underpaid experienced feelings of frustration and perceived
unfairness.
These feelings are in alignment with Adam's (1965) Equity Theory.
Employees have a desire for equal treatment, believing that if they put forth the same
effort and hard work as their coworkers, then they should receive similar recognition and
98
rewards (Hundley & Kim, 1997; Lin, 2011).
It is interesting to note that the quantitative
results of this study reveal that perceptions of fairness may not have significant power
when attempting to predict feelings of frustration; however, the qualitative data captures
feelings of frustration specifically related to pay.
Perceived quality of supervisoremployee relationships was also significantly
different for employees who thought they were underpaid when compared to those who
reported they received fair pay or were overpaid.
It is reasonable to hypothesize that
employees attributed their underpaid status to managers who did not appreciate their
value and abilities at work.
The perception of this unfairness may have prevented them
from building or maintaining good relationships with their supervisors.
Employees who
cited fair pay and or felt they were overpaid reported that they were satisfied with their
salary and relationships with supervisors. When managers have good relationships with
employees, they ensure a fair assessment process that rewards employees according to
their contributions.
Thus, employees believe a good quality relationship with
supervisors will have a positive impact on their pay, promotion, and advancement (Liden
et al., 2000).
Comparison between Taiwan and America
Similarities between Countries
Regardless of whether they are Taiwanese or American, employees who receive
equal treatment have better relationship with their supervisors.
It is not surprising that
Western and Eastern countries have no difference because most of people prefer having
positive working life at the workplace (Sturges & Guest, 2004). Receiving "fair
99
feedback from the supervisors is a valuable resource for the employees, which signals
him or her that the supervisor is interested in the employees' performance and cares
his/her development" (Sparr & Sonnentag, 2008, p. 201). Regardless of whether
employees perform well, feedback can help to reduce uncertainty. However, both
groups would produce envy emotion when they perceive unfair situation.
According to
Adams (1963) equity theory, employees expect benefits that equal to the benefits offered
to their peers. Perceptions of unfairness often result in feelings of envy and frustration
can set in when employees have a poor relationship with supervisors. Employees would
prefer to have positive supervisoremployee relationship because poor relationships
undermine the support they receive and lead to distrust (Tse & Troth, 2013). Frustration
can lead to negative behaviors (Shamsudin, Subramaniam, & Ibrahim, 2011). Finally,
employees displaying both envy and frustration have high turnover intention and negative
emotions can be destructive to one's health.
Male employees in both America and Taiwan demonstrate higher workplace
deviance than their female counterparts. According to social bonding theory, females
facing unfair situations, tend to find alternate means of venting their frustration, such as
talking to their peers or friends (Smith & Paternoster, 1987).
In contrast, males are less
likely to share their feelings and tend to endure unpleasant feelings and often release
stress through workplace deviance.
Results from studies in America and Taiwan indicate that employees are more
susceptible to envy than are their supervisors. Employees tend to work closely with on
another and there are always some individuals who outperform the others and/or receive
100
more benefits (Vidaillet, 2007). A feeling of being treated unfairly can produce feelings
of envy because the outcomes are not in line with the expectations of underperforming
employees.
Difference between Countries
Results indicate that one's sensitivity to equity can be used to predict
supervisoremployee relationships (LMX) in America, but not in Taiwan.
Americans
tend to be more an individualistic ("I" dimension) while Taiwanese is more collectivist

("we" dimension) (Wheeler, 2002).
People in an individualistic culture are brought up
believing in the need to protect one's own rights and speak out when being taken
advantages of (Hofstede, 1980).
Individualists also tend to posses a sense of entitlement
(Wheeler, 2002) and such employees can be very sensitive to the appraisal process or
even prefer receiving more from management or company.
Whether or not an employee
is the recipient of recognition and benefits has significant implications on how this
employee builds relationships with supervisors.
The perception of fairness can be used to predict feelings of frustration and LMX
can be used to predict envy among American employees; however, the results among
Taiwanese employees were precisely the opposite.
Power distance was defined as "the
extent to which less powerful members of a society accept and expect that power is
distributed unequally" (Hofstede, 1980, p. 83).
Individuals with pronounced power
distance (in this case, Taiwanese) tend to minimize the importance of unequal situations,
making them less susceptible to negative emotions (Manstead & Fischer, 2002). Envy
is an unpleasant and often painful blend of feelings characterized by inferiority, hostility,
101
and resentment caused by a comparison with a person or group of people who possess
something we desire (Smith & Kim, 2007, p. 49) and frustration is an dissatisfaction
and annoynance (D'Mello & Graesser, 2011, p. 1302).
Individualistic American
employees feel annoyed when treated unfairly and resentful of others who enjoy a better
relationship with supervisors.
Results have shown that envy can be used to predict workplace deviance among
Taiwanese employees, but not among American employees. The individualism of
Americans who manifests in dependence, individual initiative, and achievement as well
as the right to personal opinions and autonomy (Wheeler, 2002).
One of the advantages
of an individualistic attitude is a refusal to allow one's feelings of envy to lead to deviant

behaviors.
They prefer to vent their resentment by attributing the success of others to
luck or initiative, as indicated by one of the items that received highest mean score.
Full-time employees in America value fairness differently than do Taiwanese
employees. America is a masculine culture, defined by its toughness, strength,
assertiveness, and the ambition of its citizens" (Hofstede, 2001). Wheeler (2002)
suggested that in strongly masculine societies, the dominant values in society are
material success and progress, money and things are important (p.615).
Full-time
employees in America care about fairness among equals as well as whether part-time
employees receive payment on par with themselves. Regardless of whether employees
are part-time employees or full-time employee, they receive the benefits they deserved.
American supervisors demonstrate higher equity sensitivity and LMX than their
employees. Managers in the US are held accountable for the enforcement of laws
102
related to employment (e.g., Civil Right Act, Fair Labor Law).
They must ensure that
company policies comply with federal labor law and promote fair conduct in the
workplace.
They feel pressure from employees with high expectations of fairness as
well as from the fear of being sued. Thus, nurturing an attitude of fairness can garner
support from employees, improve trust in the work environment, and help them to
develop a good reputation with which to advance their career in the future.
Managers
seek to climb the career ladder to higher positions and professional relationships with
employees can rally support and inspire extra effort to achieve the goals of the
organization. Employees differ in their skills and talents, and supervisors should assign
jobs accordingly.
Nonetheless, working as a supervisor is not easy because supervisors
play a key role in influencing employee behavior (Bhal, 2006).

In America, employees are more likely to demonstrate workplace deviance than are
their supervisors and their relationship with supervisors is one of the factors directly
related to such conduct (Liu, Lin, & Hu, 2011).
A poor relationship with supervisors
can influence a supervisor in decisions related to resource distribution (e.g., job security).
As individualists, Americans tend to be less tolerant of unfair situations, which often
manifests in destructive behaviors (Schroeder, 2009). According to
frustrationaggression theory (Dollard, Miller, Doob, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939), the
unresolved negative emotions (frustration) resulting from the need to restrain one's self
may turn into aggressive or deviant behavior.
American employees who are underpaid differed considerably from overpaid
employees with regard to workplace deviance. Employees who are underpaid generally
103
have less passion for their work due to job dissatisfaction (Appelbaum, Iaconi, &
Matousek, 2007). According to social bonding theory (Hirshi, 1969), underpaid
employees are not heavily invested in their jobs and therefore demonstrate deviant
behaviors. Social bonding was defined "attachment to families, commitment to social
norms and institutions, involvement in activities, and the belief that these things are
important" (Hirschi, 1969, p. 16). Engaging in deviant behavior is one way for
underpaid employees to attain a sense of balance in their minds.
Among American employees, LMX and frustration were the only variables capable
of predicting turnover intention. However, among Taiwanese employees, all of the
variables except envy could be used for the predicting of turnover intention. Relative
deprivation theory (RDT) is related to equity theory because it involves comparisons that
employees make between the treatment they receive and that received by their
co-workers. Bolino and Turnely (2009) claimed that "RDT focuses on the behavioral
reactions that result from either a hopeful or frustrated feeling in response to such
inequities" (p. 297).
In America, poor relationship can result in receiving little support
or being assigned mundane tasks, which could in turn influence their career advancement.
A feeling of frustration over the inability to establish a strong relationship with
supervisors can increase turnover intention.
Managerial Implications
The results of this research suggest that managers should seek to minimize
unfairness and negative emotions in order to mitigate workplace deviant behavior and
turnover intention in the workplace.
This findings have a number of implications
104
regarding the means by which interpersonal relations impact the quality of life in the
workplace.
First, our results underline the influence of human factors on workplace emotions
and behaviors.
Most previous research in this area examined supervisoremployee
relationship and organizational fairness with a focus on procedural or informational

fairness (Bhal, 2005; Burton & Sablynski, 2008; Fein et al., 2013).
In contrast, this
study emphasized interactional fairness in an examination of dynamic

An organization is made up of people who work
there and despite difference in education, experience career interests, and values, they all
want to be treated with respect and fairness by their managers.
According to Van
Vianen, Shen, and Chuang (2010), a good quality of supervisoremployee relationship

influences commitment to the job and fit within the organization because employees
view their supervisor as a salient representative of the norms and values that constitute
the organizations culture and this, the good relationship may indicate their fit with
their supervisor as similar to fit with their organization (p. 907).
Our results also
indicate that fairness can strengthen leadermembers relationship as found in this

research.
According to social exchange theory, supervisors who treat employees fairly
expect the employees to behave in a reciprocally beneficial manner (Aryee, Budhwar, &
Chen, 2002).
A good quality of leadermember relationship produces positive
outcomes, including job satisfaction, helping behavior, and positive job performance (e.g.,
Bhal, 2005; Gerstner & Day, 1997; Volmer et al., 2011).
Job satisfaction among
employees is positively related to the quality of the relationship they enjoy with their
105
supervisors (Volmer et al., 2011). The quality of supervisoremployee relationships can

influence the work attitudes and behaviors of employees (Tse & Troth, 2013). A good
relationship with supervisors can prompt workers to cooperate with their coworkers.
Employees with a good work attitude demonstrate increased productivity.
Poor
supervisoremployee relationships can have harmful effects with regard to employee

engagement in voluntary unrewarded behavior. Supervisors should strive to work with
employee with whom they do not share a strong relationship. According to mutual
reward theory (MRT) (Bernard, 1926), a good reward exchange can improve the
relationship between supervisors and employees.
Enabling employees to work with
minimum supervision and recognizing their individual accomplishments can empower

workers in decision making, thereby promoting confidence in their work and cooperation
with their peers.
Second, our results indicate that equity sensitivity and emotions are better able to
explain work behaviors and the nature of relationship between leaders and members,
particularly when the samples are from different cultural and experiential background.
Our results also suggest that equity sensitivity plays a key role in mediating the effects of
supervisoremployee relationships as well as negative emotions and the two negative
workplace outcomes (e.g., deviance and the intention to turnover).
less sensitive to perceived unfairness.
Some employees are
This study found that Americans and Taiwanese
employees differ in the emotions generated with regard to fairness/unfairness and

Findings of this study may shed some light to
improve understanding on diverse labor force, commonly found in the American
106
workplace, from different cultural (e.g., Western and Eastern countries) and work
backgrounds (e.g., department, geographical location, employment status, and pay status).
It calls for attention for management to have global perspective with regard to human
resources and staff management skills in order to create and maintain a humane work
environment.
Results provide evidence that employees to support the contention that
employees are sensitive to leadership capabilities, including people skills, moral support,
and a willingness to invest in those working for them.
passively led by managers.
Todays employees not only
Instead, they take an active role seeking interaction with
managers to create a humane work environment.
A number of recent studies have
focused on the attitudes of managers and particularly on their compassion for their
employees. Atkins and Parker (2012) suggested that compassion in organization is
recognized as vital (p. 524).
The help and counseling proffered by supervisors can
help to reduce the suffering of employees.
A competent manager is sensitive and aware
of the differences among individuals, with the ability to act proactively in response to the
needs of employees.
Their support and guidance must not to be tailored to individual
employee needs.
Third, this research focused on negative emotions in supervisoremployee
relationships, rather than the positive outcomes, which previous studies focused on.
Good supervisoremployee relationships can increase employees commitment, according
to reciprocal norms.
Nonetheless, cultural differences can produce different
consequences. Few studies have focused on envy and frustration simultaneously (e.g.,
Fox & Spector, 1999; Khan et al., 2009; Kim et al., 2010). Thus, it could be seen that
107
supervisoremployee relationships and fairness are key factors influencing the emotional
state of employees while at work.
In order to avoid negative emotions, deviant
behaviors, and turnover intention, fairness in the workplace must be achieved to maintain
the quality of supervisormembers relationships.
Those outcomes can be achieved
through communication and compassion (Akins & Parker, 2012; Tse & Troth, 2013).
Some supervisors believe that if the they make right decisions, employees must comply;
therefore, they do not feel the need to explain themselves. Nonetheless, supervisors
should respect the inquiring nature of their employees and explain their decisions for all
involved (Skarlicki & Latham, 2005).
In addition, human resource management (HRM)
could be used to establish a channel for the airing of complaints to promote interactional
justice and positive emotions within the organization.
Upper management should also
encourage supervisors to engage in two-way exchange relationships with their employees

and offer training courses in communication skills. Supervisors should learn how to
interact with employees, based on an understanding of the employees' situation and
opinions.
Finally, this study also found that deviance and turnover are strongly related to low
equality, supervisoremployee relationships, negative emotions, and unfair treatment.
The promotion of job satisfaction could be used to mediate turnover intention and
workplace deviance (Brooke, 1988; Omar, Halim, Zainah, & Farhadi, 2011). Previous
research tended to focus on either deviance or turnover (e.g., Kim et al., 2010; Yen &
Teng, 2012); however, this study focused on both of these negative outcomes.
Employees are likely to develop negative behaviors in the workplace as a reaction to a
108
negative evaluation of the current work situation (Henle, 2005). Baucus and Near (1991)
pointed out that employees who are new to their job are more likely to engage in
workplace deviance due to a lack of commitment to the organization. Management
could pursue background checks and psychological testing when they hire new
employees.
deviance.
In addition, strengthening the ethnical climate could also reduce workplace

"Organizations with stronger ethical climates were more likely to be
successful in dealing with ethical issues" (Appelbaum et al., 2005, p.46).
When
employees has been with a company for a long time and have personal morality value,
they would not easily to produce negative behavior in the workplace.
Managers are
often unaware of the reasons for which employees leave the company, until they receive
the resignation.
Thus, preventing turnover intention should begin with improving the
employees' daily work life, based on careful consideration of the working conditions and
an appreciation of work attitude.
Our results provide evidence that employees who
perceive fair treatment enjoy better relationships with their supervisors, have positive
emotions, demonstrate less deviant behavior, and lower turnover intention.
Supervisor
could provide training opportunities and seek to recognize the efforts of employees, based
on the knowledge that every employee is unique an valuable.
In addition, supervisors
should try to empower employees in terms of handling customer complaints to increase

their investiture with customer satisfaction.
The results of this study also suggest the following contributions.
First, the
majority of previous research solely tested employees perceptions in leadermember

exchange (LMX).
Since LMX is regarding the relationship of supervisors and
109
employees, it makes better sense to measure the perceptions of both parties. As results
indicated, there is no difference between supervisors and employees in LMX for Taiwans
data. However, for Americas data, supervisors have higher mean scores than
employees in LMX. Second, this research used open-ended questions to further
examine employees' and supervisors' perceptions on fairness (e.g., interactional justice).
Results indicated that there is no difference in fairness among employees and supervisors
in Taiwan and America.
All supervisors indicated that they provided reasonable
treatment to employees and the majority of employees indicated that their supervisors
treated them well. Third, this study also explored how employees react to unfair
treatment from and commit to deviance. This may be considered one of the most
important contributions of the study because most Taiwanese deviance related research
simply used the existing American scale and did not provide further explanation. Thus,
the results of their studies may be limited and not truly reflect deviant behaviors of
Taiwanese employees.
Last, this study measured both envy and frustration emotions,
while previous research studied focused only on envy or frustration. For American
employees, they felt envy and frustrated regardless of whether they perceived unfair
treatment from or had poor quality of relationship with supervisors. On the contrary,
Taiwanese employees were envy when treated unfairly and frustrated when they
perceived they did not have good relationships with supervisors.
Limitations
Due to the design of this research, this study suggests the following limitations need
to be noted.
110
1.
Due to the strict company policy, it is extremely difficult to collect data in America.
The unequal sample size between American and Taiwanese samples may cause bias
on the results.
2.
This study use Likert scale for all measurement and it is important to note that
self-rating scale can be biased.
As indicated by Donaldson and Grant-Vallone
(2002), participants may respond in a way that makes them look as good as
possible and because of this, participants tend to under-report behaviors deemed
inappropriate by researchers (p. 247).
3.
Another limitation involves one of the surveys (e.g., workplace frustration)

containing less than seven items.
Thus, it may be the cause for the relatively low
Cronbachs coefficient alpha of the scale that fell below the recommended .70-1.00
level recommended for social science research.
4.
While this study provides valuable results comparing Taiwanese and US employees
on their perceptions and attitudes toward leadermember exchange relationships and
interactional fairness, a limitation on the seven scale should be noted.
For
Taiwanese sample, some of the variables chosen from theories can significant predict
each other while others can not (e.g., account for less than 5% of the variances for the
dependent variables).
A pilot test is suggested to conduct in Taiwan which may be
helpful to improve the validity of the scales and predicting power of the variables.
5.
This research investigated negative emotions and deviance, it can not ensure that
participants response honestly.
Additionally, the results may be limited as the
scales did not intend to measure the degree or severity of participants emotions and
111
deviant behaviors which may better capture their true feelings.

Future Research
There are some suggestions for the future researchers. First, an equal sample size
is recommended for replicated studies using the same comparative approach between two
groups or countries in order to reduce bias. Second, although self-rating could cause
bias, it is the best way to measure emotion (Diener, 2000). Third, the frustration scale
reliability was below .70.
More items would need to be added to improve the reliability
of the scale. Fourth, to increase the variance more than 5% (e.g., LMX predict envy or
frustration), the scale needed to reexamine to better capture the unique aspects of the
sample population and to increase of validity of the scale. Fifth, while our data
provided theoretical meanings by using social exchange theory and equity theory to
explain employees workplace emotion, attitudes, and behaviors, this study may also
limit its scope to employees overall work outcomes.
Future research is courage to add
other variables or theories such as adopt affective event theory. As noted by Tse and
Troth (2011), affective event theory (AET) is regarding "a range of daily events at work
influence employee emotional responses that lead to important organizational and
individual outcomes" (p. 273). AET could be used to further understand hotel
employees' negative emotions and negative behaviors.
Sixth, since our sample included
supervisors and employees working in three star and above hotels in two countries
(Taiwan and USA), replication with a larger and nationwide sample inform different
service types and size of hotels (especially for the America sample) is needed to
determine whether geographic locations or other factors (e.g., personality characteristics)
112
that are not identified in this research could impact the overall results of workplace
deviant behavior and turnover intention.
this finding.
This would also improve generalizability of
Last, this study translated Western workplace deviant behavior scale which
may omit Taiwanese specific deviance.
While the responses derived from our
open-ended questions may help capture some aspects of deviant behaviors, more research
is needed to validate and develop a workplace deviant behavior scale that can suit better
to the sample population and to substantiate the reliability of our results.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
CONSENT FORM IN CHINESE
Appendix A
Consent Form in Chinese
/
77
10-15 2013 7 1
(001) 714-553-9542
(001) 330-672-2303
(001) 330-672-2704
(001) 714-553-9542
yling@kent.edu

(001) 330-672-2303
nchuang@Kent.edu
115
APPENDIX B
CONSENT FORM IN ENGLISH
Appendix B
Consent Form in English
Dear all,
I am a graduate student in the Hospitality and Tourism Management Program at Kent

State University. I am currently conducting a research about the the effect of
manager-employee interaction on employee outcomes. This study hopes to improve our
understanding of how the interaction factor impact the quality of employee work life.
Completing the survey will take approximately 5 to 10 minutes. Please answer each
question.
Your participation in this study is voluntary and anonymous. Your answers will not be
reviewed by anyone but the researcher here at Kent State University, and individual
responses will be kept completely confidential. No identifiers will be connected to the
survey. Your response is vital to the success of this study and will provide important
information for hotel managers to create and promote a better workplace.
If you want to know more about this research project, please call me at 714-553-9542 or Dr.
Chuang at 330-672-2303. This project has been approved by Kent State University. If you
have questions about your rights as a participant or complaints about the research you may
call the IRB at 330-672-2704.
Thank you for your time and assistance, it is much appreciated.
Yu-Ya Ling
Graduate Student
Hospitality and Tourism Management
Kent State University
714-553-9542
yling@kent.edu
Ning-Kuang Chuang, PhD. C.H.E.

Associate Professor
Hospitality Management
Kent State University
330-672-2303
nchuang@kent.edu
117
APPENDIX C
QUESTIONNAIRE IN CHINESE
Appendix C
Questionnaire in Chinese
I.
1
2
1
2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
119
3
3
4
4
5
5
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
120
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
3
3
4
4
5
5
1.
1
2
2.
1
2
3.
1
2
4.
1
2
5.
1
2
6.
1
2
7.
1
2
8.
1
2
9.
1
2
10.
1
2
11.
1
2
12.
1
2
121
1.
1
2
2.
1
2
3.
1
2
4.
1
2
5.
1
2
1.
2.
3. .
4.
5.
6.
1
2
1
2
1
2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
1
1
3
3
4
4
5
5
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
2
3
4
5
6
7
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
122
13. .
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
1.
2.
3.
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
2
1
2
1
2
II.
1.
2.
3.
4.
III.
1.
2.
a.
b.
______
5
5
5
123
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
f.
4. a.
b.
c.
d.
5. ______.
6. ______.
7.
a.
b.
c. d.
e.
f. g.
h. __________________.
8. a.
b.
c.
9. / a. /
b.
10. / ______.
11. a.
b.
c.
3.
APPENDIX D
QUESTIONNAIRE IN ENGLISH
Appendix D
Questionnaire in English
I. Scale
Please circle the number for each question.
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree Neither Agree
disagree
agree
1. Your supervisor considered your
viewpoint.
2. Your supervisor was able to
suppress personal biases.
3. Your supervisor provided you with
timely feedback about the decision and
its implications.
4. Your supervisor treated you with
kindness and consideration.
5. Your supervisor showed concern for
your rights as an employee.
6. Your supervisor took steps to deal
with you in a truthful manner.
Strongly
Strongly
disagree
agree
1. I prefer to do as little as possible at
work while getting as much as I can
from my employer.
2. I am most satisfied at work when I
have to do as little as possible.
3. When I am at my job, I think of ways
to get out of work.
4. If I could get away with it, I would
try to work just a little bit slower than
the boss expects.
5. It is really satisfying to me when I can
get something for nothing at work.
6. It is the smart employee who gets as
much as he/she can while giving as
little as possible in return.
125
126
7.Employees who are more concerned

about what they can get from their
employer rather than what they can
give to their employer are the wisest.
8. When I have completed my task for
the day, I help out other employees who
have yet to complete their tasks.
9. Even if I receive low wages and poor
benefits from my employer, I would still
try to do my best at my job.
10. If I had to work hard all day at my
job, I would probably quit.
11. I feel obligated to do more than I am
paid to do at work.
12. At work, my greatest concern is
whether or not I am doing the best job I
can.
13. A job which requires me to be busy
during the day is better than a job which
allows me a lot of loafing.
14. At work, I feel uneasy when there is
little work for me to do.
15. I would become very dissatisfied
with my job if I had little or no work to
do.
16. All other things being equal, it is
better to have a job with a lot of duties
and responsibilities than one with few
duties and responsibilities.
Strongly
Strongly
disagree
agree
1. If my manager does something for
me, I will return the favor at some
point.
2. My manager and I have a two-way
exchange relationship.
3. I do not have to specify the exact
conditions to know my manager will
return a favor.
4. If I do something for my manager, he
or she will eventually repay me.
127
5. I give more than I take with my

supervisor.
6. My opinion has an inuence on my
manager, and his or her opinion has an
inuence on me.
7. I have a balance of inputs and
outputs with my manager.
8. When my supervisor gives me
support, I feel I owe it to him or her to
return the favor.
9. My efforts are reciprocated by my
manager.
10. My relationship with my manager
is composed of comparable exchanges
of giving and taking.
11. When I give effort at work, my
manager will return it.
12. Voluntary actions on my part will
be returned in some way by my
manager.
Strongly
Strongly
disagree
agree
1. My supervisor values the efforts of
others more than she/he values my
efforts.
2. It is somewhat annoying to see
others have all the luck in getting the
best assignments.
3. I dont know why, but I usually
seem to be the underdog at work.
4. I dont imagine Ill ever have a job
as good as some that Ive seen.
5. Most of my coworkers have it better
than I do.
Strongly
Strongly
disagree
agree
1. There are times when my efforts to
just do my job as efficiently as
possible are blocked by other people.
2. There are a lot of petty and arbitrary
rules at work.
128
3. I rarely run into obstacles trying to

get things done at work.
4. There are occasions when my job
would be easier if people were more
cooperative.
5. Often the system at work prevents
you from doing things in a more
efficient way.
6. Now and again I feel thwarted in
my efforts to do a good job
Several
Once Twice
Never
times Monthly Weekly Daily
a year a year
a year
1. Taken property from work
without permission.
2. Spent too much time
fantasizing or daydreaming
instead working
3. Falsified a receipt to get
reimbursed for more money than
you spent on business expenses.
4. Taken an additional or a
longer break than is acceptable
your workplace.
5. Come in late to work without
permission.
6. Littered your work
environment.
7. Neglected to follow your
boss's instructions.
8. Intentionally worked slower
than you could have worked.
9. Discussed confidential
company information with an
unauthorized person.
10. Used an illegal drug or
consumed alcohol on the job.
11. Put little effort into your
work.
12. Dragged out work in order to
get overtime.
129
13. Made fun of someone at

work.
14. Said something hurtful to
someone at work.
15. Made an ethnic, religious, or
racial remark or joke at work.
16. Cursed at someone at work.
17. Played a mean prank on
someone at work.
18. Acted rudely toward
someone at work .
19. Publicly embarrassed
someone at work.
Strongly
Strongl
disagree
y agree
1. I think a lot about leaving the
organization.
2. I am actively searching for an
alternative to the organization.
3. As soon as it is possible, I will leave
the organization.
II. Open-ended questions

Please write down the answer.
1. If you are a supervisor, how do you treat your employees?
2. How does your supervisor treat you?
3. If you experience unfair treatment, what will you do?
4. Have you ever heard any workplace deviance? If yes, please explain it.
130
III. Background information

Please answer the questions.
1.
2.
3.
What is you gender? a. Male

b. Female
What is your age? ______.
Marital status? a. Single
b. Married without children
c. Married with
children
d. Divorced without children
e. Divorced with children
f. A
widow
4. What is your educational level?
a. High school
b. Vocational high school
c. University
d. Graduate
school
5. How many years have you worked in the hospitality industry? ______ year(s).
6. How many years have you worked in the hotel industry? ______ year(s).
7. Which departments and/or hospitality sectors do you work or used to work?
a. Front desk
b. House keeping
c. Food and beverage
d. Sales and marketing
e. Accounting
f. Maintenance and engineering
g. Purchasing
h. Restaurant
i. Country club
j. Others, please specify
__________________.
8. What is your current work status in the hotel?
a. Part time
b. Full time
c. Currently not work in the hotel
9. What is your job title? a. Supervisor/Manager
b. Employee
10. If you are a supervisor/manager, how many employees do you supervise?
______.
11. How do you perceive the salary you receive from current job?
a. Underpay b. Fair
c. Overpay
REFERENCE
REFERENCE
Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. The Journal of Abnormal

and Social Psychology, 67(5), 422.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York, NY: Academic
Press.
Aitkinson, W. (2000). The everyday face of workplace violence: Policies on employee
violence and policy coverage. Risk Management, 47(2), 12-18.
Al-Zu'bi, H. A. (2010). A study of relationship between organizational justice and job
satisfaction. International Journal of Business & Management, 5(12), 102-109.
Alonso, A. D., & ONeill, M. A. (2009). Stafng issues among small hospitality
businesses: A college town case. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
28(4), 573-578.
Ambrose, M. L., Seabright, M. A., & Schminke, M. (2002). Sabotage in the workplace:
The role of organizational injustice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 89(1), 947-965.
Ando, N., & Matsuda, S. (2010). How employees see their roles: The effect of
interactional justice and gender. Journal of Service Science and Management, 3(2),
281-286.
Anwar, M., Sarwar, M., & Arif, M (2011). Gender differences in workplace deviant
132
133
behavior of university teachers and modification techniques. International

Education Studies, 4(1), 193-197.
Appelbaum, S. H., Deguire, K. J., & Lay, M. (2005). The relationship of ethical climate
to deviant workplace behavior. Corporate Governance, 5(4), 43-55.
Appelbaum, S. H., Iaconi, G. D., & Matousek, A. (2007). Positive and negative deviant
workplace behaviors: Causes, impacts, and solutions. Corporate Governance, 7(5),
586-598.
Aquino, K., Griffeth, R. W., Allen, D. G., & Hom, P. W. (1997). Integrating justice
constructs into the turnover process: A test of a referent cognitions model. Academy
of Management Journal, 40(5), 1208-1227.
Aquino, K., Lewis, M. U., & Bradfield, M. (1999). Justice constructs, negative affectivity,
and employee deviance: A proposed model and empirical test. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 20(7), 1073-1091.
Archer, J. (2009). Does sexual selection explain human sex differences in aggression?.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(3-4), 249-266.
Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic
review. Review of general Psychology, 8(4), 291-322.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship
between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 267-285.
Ashley, C., Noble, S. M., Donthu, N., & Lemon, K. N. (2011). Why customers won't
relate: Obstacles to relationship marketing engagement. Journal of Business
134
Research, 64(7), 749-756.

Atkins, P. W., & Parker, S. K. (2012). Understanding individual compassion in
organizations: The role of appraisals and psychological flexibility. Academy of
Management Review, 37(4), 524-546.
Baillien, E., Neyens, I., De Witte, H., & De Cuyper, N. (2009). A qualitative study on the
development of workplace bullying: Towards a three way model. Journal of
Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19(1), 1-16.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career
Development International, 13(3), 209-223.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barling, J., & Phillips, M. (1993). Interactional, formal, and distributive justice in the
workplace: An exploratory study. The Journal of Psychology, 127(6), 649-656.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership (3rd ed). New York, NY:
Free Press.
Baucus, M., & Near, J. (1991). Can illegal corporate behavior be predicted? An event
history analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 9-36.
Bauer, T. N., Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C., & Wayne, S. J. (2006). A longitudinal study of
the moderating role of extraversion: Leader-member exchange, performance, and
turnover during new executive development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2),
298-310.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
135
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3),

497-529.
Belhassen, Y., & Shani, A. (2013). Substance abuse and job attitude among hotel workers:
Social labeling perspectives. Tourism Management, 34, 47-49.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace
deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349-360.
Ben-Zeev, A. (1992). Envy and inequality. Journal of Philosophy, 89(11), 551-581.
Ben-Zeev, A. (2000). The subtlety of emotions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bernard, L. L. (1926). An introduction to social psychology. New York, NY: Holt.
Bernerth, J. B., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., & Walker, H. J. (2007).
Leadermember social exchange (LMSX): Development and validation of a scale.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(8), 979-1003.
Bhal, K. T. (2006). LMX-citizenship behavior relationship: Justice as a
mediator. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(2), 106-117.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons.
Blau, B., & Boal, K. (1989). Using job involvement and organizational commitment
interactively to predict turnover. Journal of Management, 15(1), 115-127.
Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C., & Schilling, E. A. (1989). Effects of daily stress
on negative mood. Journal of personality and social psychology, 57(5), 808-818.
Bolin, A., & Heatherly, L. (2001). Predictors of employee deviance: The relationship
between bad attitudes and bad behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(3),
136
405-418.
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2009). Relative deprivation among employees in
lower-quality leadermember exchange relationships. The Leadership Quarterly,
20(3), 276-286.
Bowling, N. A., & Gruys, M. L. (2010). Overlooked issues in the conceptualization and
measurement of counterproductive work behavior. Human Resource Management
Review, 20(1), 54-61.
Brockner, J., Chen, Y. R., Mannix, E. A., Leung K. & Skarlicki, D. R. (2000). Culture and
procedural fairness: When the effects of what you do depend on how you do it.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 138-159.
Brooke, R. W., Russell, D. W., & Price, J. L. (1988). Discriminant validation of measure
of job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 73(2), 139-145.
Burton, J. P., Sablynski, C. J., & Sekiguchi, T. (2008). Linking justice, performance, and
citizenship via leadermember exchange. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 23(1-2), 51-61.
Carbery, R., Garavan, T. N., O Brien, F., & McDonnell, J. (2003). Predicting hotel
managers turnover cognitions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(7), 649-679.
Carrell, M. R., & Dittrich, J. E. (1976). Employee perceptions of fair treatment.
Personnel Journal, 55, 523-524.
Cha, E., Kim, K. H., & Erlen, J. A. (2007). Translation of scales in cross-cultural research:
issues and techniques. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 58(4), 386-395.
137
Chalkiti, K., & Carson, D. (2010). Knowledge cultures, competitive advantage and staff
turnover in hospitality in Australia's Northern territory. In D. Harorimana
(Eds.), Cultural implications of knowledge sharing, management and transfer:
Identifying competitive advantage (pp. 203-229). Hershey, PA: Information Science
Reference.
Chalkiti, K., & Sigala, M. (2010). Staff turnover in the Greek tourism industry: A
comparison between insular and peninsular regions. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(3), 335-359.
Chambel, M. J., & Sobral, F. (2011). Training is an investment with return in temporary
workers: A social exchange perspective. Career Development International, 16(2),
161-177.
Chen, C. C., & Chiu, S. F. (2008). An integrative model linking supervisor support and
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 23(1-2),
1-10.
Chen, C., Mao, H., Hsieh, A., Liu, L., & Yen, C. (2013). The relationship among
interactive justice, leader-member exchange, and workplace friendship. The Social
Science Journal, 50(1), 89-95.
Chen, C., & Myagmarsuren, O. (2011). Brand equity, relationship quality, relationship
value, and customer loyalty: Evidence from the telecommunications services. Total
Quality Management and Business Excellence, 22(9), 957-974.
Chen, Z., Lam, W., & Zhong, J. A. (2007). Leadermember exchange and member
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 202-212.
138
Cho, S., Woods, R. H., Jang, S. C., & Erden, M. (2006). Measuring the impact of human
resource management practices on hospitality rms performances. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 25(2), 262-277.
Chuang, N. K. (2011). Job-related barriers and coping behaviors in the career
development of hospitality undergraduates. Journal of Human Resources in
Hospitality & Tourism, 10(1), 14-31.
Chuang, N. K. (2010). The impact of gender on hospitality undergraduates' perceived
career barriers. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 22(3), 12-19.
Chuang, N. K., Yin, D., & Dellmann-Jenkins, M. (2009). Intrinsic and extrinsic factors
impacting casino hotel chefs' job satisfaction. International Journal of
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Mueller, J. S. (2007). Does perceived unfairness exacerbate or
mitigate interpersonal counterproductive work behaviors related to envy? Journal
of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 666-680.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A
meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2),
278-321.
Collins, M. (2010). The effect of psychological contract fulfillment on manager turnover
intentions and its role as a mediator in a casual, limited-service restaurant
environment. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(4), 736-742.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001).
Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational
139
justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445.

Council of Labor Affairs. (2011, June). Labor standards act. Retrieved from
http://laws.cla.gov.tw/Eng/FLAW/FLAWDAT0201.asp
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., Kessler, I., & Purcell, J. (2004). Exploring organizationally
directed citizenship behaviors: Reciprocity or "it's my job"? Journal of
Management Studies, 41(1), 85-106.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary
review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. R. (2001). Moral virtues,
fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 164-209.
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social exchange theory to
distinguish procedural from interactional justice. Group & Organization
Management, 27(3), 324-351.
Cropanzano, R., & Rupp, D. E. (2008). Social exchange theory and organizational justice:
Job performance, citizenship behaviors, multiple foci, and a historical integration of
two literatures. In S. W. Gilliland, D. P. Skarlicki, & D. D. Steiner (Eds.), Research
in social issues in management: Justice, morality, and social responsibility (pp.
63-99). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Daileyl, R. C., & Kirk, D. J. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as antecedents of
job dissatisfaction and intent to turnover. Human Relations, 45(3), 305-317.
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational
140
citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 90(6), 1241-1255.
Dansereau, F., Alutto, J., & Yammarino, F. (1984). Theory testing in organizational
behavior: the varient approach: instructor's manual. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to
leadership within formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 13(1), 46-78.
Davidson, M. C., Timo, N., & Wang, Y. (2010). How much does labour turnover cost?:
A case study of Australian four-and five-star hotels. International Journal of
Dayan, M., & Di Benedetto, A. (2008). Procedural and interactional justice perceptions
and teamwork quality. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 23(8), 566-576.
Deluga, R. J. (2011). Supervisor trust building, leadermember exchange and
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 67(4), 315-326.
De Vries, M. F. K. (1992). The motivating role of envy a forgotten factor in
management theory. Administration & Society, 24(1), 41-60.
Dickerson, J. P. (2009). The realistic preview may not yield career satisfaction.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(2), 297-299.
Diefendorff, J. M., Croyle, M. H., & Gosserand, R. H. (2005). The dimensionality and
antecedents of emotional labor strategies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2),
141
339-357.
Diefendorff, J. M., & Mehta, K. (2007). The relations of motivational traits with
workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 967-977.
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a
national index. American psychologist, 55(1), 34-43.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and
implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4),
611-628.
Dittrich, J. E., & Carrell, M. R. (1979). Organizational equity perceptions, employee job
satisfaction, and departmental absence and turnover rates. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 24(1), 29-40.
D'Mello, S., & Graesser, A. (2011). The half-life of cognitive-affective states during
complex learning. Cognition & Emotion, 25(7), 1299-1308.
Dogan, K., & Vecchio, R. P. (2001). Managing envy and jealousy in the workplace.
Compensation & Benefits Review, 33(2), 57-64.
Dollard, J., Miller, N. E., Doob, L. W., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration
and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Donaldson, S. I., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in
organizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(2),
245-260.
Dunlop, P. D., & Lee, K. (2004). Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship behavior,
and business unit performance: The bad apples do spoil the whole barrel. Journal of
142

Duchon, D., Green, S. G., & Taber, T. D. (1986). Vertical dyad linkage: A longitudinal
assessment of antecedents, measures, and consequences. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71(1), 6-60.
Dusterhoff, C., Cunningham, J. B., & MacGregor, J. N. (2013). The effects of
performance rating, leadermember exchange, perceived utility, and organizational
justice on performance appraisal satisfaction: Applying a moral judgment
perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(1), 1-9.
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences
and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The
developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123-174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
El Akremi, A., Vandenberghe, C., & Camerman, J. (2010). The role of justice and social
exchange relationships in workplace deviance: Test of a mediated model. Human
Relations, 63(11), 1687-1717.
Exline, J. J., & Zell, A. L. (2012). Who doesn't want to be envied? Personality correlates
of emotional responses to outperformance scenarios. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 34(3), 236-253.
Fagbohungbe, B. O., Akinbode, G. A., & Ayodeji, F. (2012). Organizational determinants
of workplace deviant behaviors: An empirical analysis in Nigeria. International
Journal of Business and Management, 7(5), 207-221.
Feather, N. T., & Sherman, R. (2002). Envy, resentment, schadenfreude, and sympathy:
Reactions to deserved and undeserved achievement and subsequent failure.
143
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(10), 953-961.

Fein, E. C., Tziner, A., Lusky, L., & Palachy, O. (2013). Relationships between ethical
climate, justice perceptions, and LMX. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 34(2), 147-163.
Feldman, J. M. (1986). A note on the statistical correction of halo error. Journal of
Fisk, G., & Friesen, J. (2012). Perceptions of leader emotion regulation and LMX as
predictors of followers' job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors. The
Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 1-12.
Fitness, J. (2000). Anger in the workplace: An emotion script approach to anger episodes
between workers and their superiors, co-workers and subordinates. Journal of
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged
community sample. Journal of health and social behavior, 21(3), 219-239.
Foote, D. A., & Harmon, S. (2006). Measuring equity sensitivity. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 21(2), 90-108.
Forret, M., & Love, M. S. (2008). Employee justice perceptions and coworker
relationships. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29(3), 248-260.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustrationaggression. Journal of
organizational behavior, 20(6), 915-931.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange
theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of applied psychology, 82(6),
144
827-843.
Giacalone, R. A., & Knouse, S. B. (1990). Justifying wrongful employee behavior: The
role of personality in organizational sabotage. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(1), 55-61.
Gill, H., Meyer, J. P., Lee, K., Shin, K. H., & Yoon, C. Y. (2011). Affective and
continuance commitment and their relations with deviant workplace behaviors in
Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(3), 595-607.
Gonzalez-Mul, E., DeGeest, D. S., Kiersch, C. E., & Mount, M. K. (2013). Gender
differences in personality predictors of counterproductive behavior. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 28(4), 333-353.
Goodman, P. S. (1974). An examination of referents used in the evaluation of pay.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12(2), 170-195.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
sociological review, 25(2), 161-178.
Graen, G., Liden, R. C., & Hoel, W. (1982). Roles of leadership in the employee
withdrawal process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(6), 868-872
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 175-208.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership:
Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25
years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly,
6(2), 219-247.
Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of
145

Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden
costs of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 561-568.
Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal
moderators of theft reactions to underpayment equity. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 54(1), 81-103.
Greenberg, J., & Alge, B. J. (1998). Aggressive reactions to workplace injustice. In R. W.
Griffin, A. O'Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in
organizations: Violent and deviant behavior (pp. 83-117). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Greenberg, J. S., & Westcott, D. R. (1983) Indebtedness as a mediator of reactions to aid.
In J. D. Fisher, A. Nadler, & B. M. De Paulo (Eds.), New directions in helping (Vol. 1,
pp. 85-112). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1990). Retirement as a voluntary organizational
withdrawal behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37(1), 60-78.
Harper, D. C. (1990). Spotlight abuseSave profits. Industrial Distribution, 79, 47-49.
Hauge, L., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2010). The relative impact of workplace bullying
as a social stressor at work. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51(5), 426-433.
Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York, NY: Wiley.
Henle, C. A. (2005). Predicting workplace deviance from the interaction between
organizational justice and personality. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17(3), 247-263.
Hinkin, T., & Tracey, J. B. (2000). The cost of turnover: Putting a price on the learning
curve. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 14-21.
146
Hinkin, T., & Tracey, J. B. (2008). Contextual factors and cost profiles associated with
employee turnover. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 49(1), 12-27.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hofmann, D. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Gerras, S. J. (2003). Climate as a moderator of the
relationship between leader-member exchange and content specific citizenship:
Safety climate as an exemplar, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 170-178.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Houshmand, M., OReilly, J., Robinson, S., & Wolff, A. (2012). Escaping bullying: The
simultaneous impact of individual and unit-level bullying on turnover intentions.
Human Relations, 65(7), 901-918.
Hsu, C. F. (2011, February 23). Sothern Taiwan employees have better life than
Northern Taiwan employees. Apply Daily. Retrieved from http://www.appledaily.
com.tw/appledaily/article/headline/20110223/33202412/
Huang, X., Chan, S. C., Lam, W., & Nan, X. (2010). The joint effect of leadermember
exchange and emotional intelligence on burnout and work performance in call
centers in China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(7),
1124-1144.
Hundley, G., & Kim, J. (1997). National culture and the factors affecting perceptions of
pay fairness in Korea and the United States. International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, 5(4), 325-341.
Huseman, R., Hatfield, J., & Miles, E (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The
147
equity sensitivity construct. Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 232-234.

Iverson, R. D., & Deery, M. (2007). Turnover culture in the hospitality industry. Human
Resource Management Journal, 7(4), 71-82.
Jolliffe, L., & Farnsworth, R. (2003). Seasonality in tourism employment: Human
resources challenges. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 15(6), 312-316.
Jones, D. A. (2009) Getting even with ones supervisor and ones organization:
Relationships among types of injustice, desires for revenge, and counterproductive
work behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(4), 525-542.
Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace
deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 126-138.
Kacmar, K., Bachrach, D., Harris, K., & Noble, D. (2012). Exploring the role of
supervisor trust in the associations between multiple sources of relationship conflict
and organizational citizenship behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 43-54.
Karadag, I., & Kim, W. G. (2006). Comparing market-segment-profitability analysis with
department-profitability analysis as hotel marketing-decision tools. Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 47(2), 155-173.
Karatepe, O., Babakus, E., & Yavas, U. (2012). Affectivity and organizational politics as
antecedents of burnout among frontline hotel employees. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 31(1), 66-75.
Keenan, A., & Newton, T. J. (1984). Frustration in organizations: Relationships to role
stress, climate, and psychological strain. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 57(1),
148
57-65.
Khan, A. K., Peretti, J. M., & Quratulain, S. (2009). Envy and counterproductive work
behaviors: Is more fairness always preferred. In Proceeding of the 20th AGRH
Conference. Toulouse, France, 1-22.
Kim, B., Lee, G., & Carlson, K. (2010). An examination of the nature of the relationship
between leader-member-exchange (LMX) and turnover intent at different
organizational levels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(4),
591-597.
Kim, H. J. (2008). Hotel service providers emotional labor: The antecedents and effects
on burnout. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(2), 151-161.
Kim, S., O'Neill, J., & Cho, H. (2010). When does an employee not help coworkers? The
effect of leader-member exchange on employee envy and organizational citizenship
behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(3), 530-537.
Kim, S. K., Jung, D. I., & Lee, J. S. (2012). Service employees deviant behaviors and
leadermember exchange in contexts of dispositional envy and dispositional
jealousy. Service Business, 6(1), 1-20.
Konovsky, M. A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business
organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 489-511.
Krischer, M. M., Penney, L. M., & Hunter, E. M. (2010). Can counterproductive work
behaviors be productive? CWB as emotion-focused coping. Journal of occupational
health psychology, 15(2), 154-166.
Kwon, S., & Jang, S. S. (2012). Effects of compensation for service recovery: From the
149
equity theory perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(4),

1235-1243.
Ladd, D., & Henry, R. (2000). Helping coworkers and helping the organization: The role
of support perceptions, exchange ideology, and conscientiousness. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 30(10), 2028-2049.
Ladebo, O. J., Awotunde, J. M., & AbdulSalaam-Saghir, P. (2008). Coworkers' and
supervisor interactional justice: Correlates of extension personnel's job satisfaction,
distress, and aggressive behavior. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management,
9(2), 206-225.
Lam, K. F. C. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, emotions, and harming: The role of
cooperative goals (Doctoral dissertation, Hong Kong Polytechnic University).
Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10397/2781
Lam, L. W., Loi, R., & Leong, C. (2011). Reliance and disclosure: How supervisory
justice affects trust in supervisor and extra-role performance. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 30(1), 231-249.
Lam, W., & Chen, Z. (2012). When I put on my service mask: Determinants and
outcomes of emotional labor among hotel service providers according to affective
event theory. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(1), 3-11.
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., Jiang, S., Elechi, O. O., Benjamin, B., Morris, A., &
Dupuy, P. (2010). The relationship among distributive and procedural justice and
correctional life satisfaction, burnout, and turnover intent: An exploratory study.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(1), 7-16.
150
Lawler, E. J. (2001). An affect theory of social exchange. American Journal of

Sociology, 107(2), 321-352.
LeBlanc, M. M., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Predictors and outcomes of workplace
violence and aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 444-453.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace
deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1),
131-142.
Lee, R., & Wilbur, E. R. (1985). Age, education, job tenure, salary, job characteristics,
and job satisfaction: A multivariate analysis. Human Relations, 38(8), 781-791.
Lewandowski, C. A. (2003). Organizational factors contributing to worker frustration:
The precursor to burnout. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 30(4), 175-185.
Li, X., Sanders, K., & Frenkel, S. (2012). How leader-member exchange enhances job
performance for Chinese hotel employees: The role of work engagement and HRM
consistency. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(4), 1059-1066.
Liang, W. M., Kuo, H. W., & Wang, C. B. (2002). Prevalence of tobacco smoking,
drinking and betel nut chewing among Taiwanese workers in 1999. Mid-Taiwan
Journal of Medicine, 7, 146-154.
Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2006). Leadermember
exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: Implications for individual and
group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(6), 723-746.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating
role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal
151
relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 407-416.

Liu, S., Lin, X., & Hu, W. (2013). How followers' unethical behavior is triggered by
leader-member exchange: The mediating effect of job satisfaction. Social Behavior
& Personality: An International Journal, 41(3), 357-366.
Lin, G. P. (2011, June 17). Addressing perceptions of workplace inequities. Human
Resource Executive Online. Retrieved from http://www.hreonline.com/HRE/view/
story.jhtml?id=533339271
Lo, A., & Lam, T. (2002). The relationship between demographic characteristics and
socialization outcomes among new employees in Hong Kong hotels. Journal of
Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 1(2), 1-14.
Locke, E. A., & Taylor, M. S. (1990). Stress and the meaning of work. In A. Brief & W.
Nord (Eds.), Meanings of occupational work (pp. 135170). Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Loftus, M. B. (1988). Internships in embassy suites hotels: Development through
management style. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 12(2), 492-493.
Loi, R., Yang, J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). Four-factor justice and daily job
satisfaction: A multilevel investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3),
770-781.
Lucas, T. (2009). Justifying outcomes versus processes: Distributive and procedural
justice beliefs as predictors of positive and negative affectivity. Current
Psychology, 28(4), 249-265.
Ma, E., & Qu, H. (2011). Social exchanges as motivators of hotel employees'
152
organizational citizenship behavior: The proposition and application of a new

three-dimensional framework. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
30(3), 680-688.
Maier, N. R. F. (1973). Psychology in Industrial Organizations. Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin.
Manion, J. (2000). Retaining current leaders. Health Forum Journal, 43(5), 24-27.
Manstead, A. S. R., & Fischer, A. H. (2002). Culture and emotion: Beyond the
universality-relativity dichotomy. Introduction to Culture and Emotion. Special
Issue of Cognition and Emotion, 16, 1-9.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice
and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment of work
relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 738-748.
McCain, S. L. C., Tsai, H., & Bellino, N. (2010). Organizational justice, employees'
ethical behavior, and job satisfaction in the casino industry. International Journal of
McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Impact of leadership style and
emotions on subordinate performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 545-559.
McQuilken, L., McDonald, H., & Vocino, A. (2013). Is guarantee compensation enough?
The important role of fix and employee effort in restoring justice. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 41-50.
Medler-Liraz, H., & Kark, R. (2012). It takes three to tango: Leadership and hostility in
the service encounter. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 81-93.
153
Mnard, J., Brunet, L., & Savoie, A. (2011). Interpersonal workplace deviance: Why do
offenders act out? A comparative look on personality and organizational variables.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du
comportement, 43(4), 309-317.
Menon, T., & Thompson, L. (2007). Dont hate me because Im beautiful: Self-enhancing
biases in threat appraisal. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
104(1), 45-60.
Mikula, G., Petri, B., & Tanzer, N. (1990). What people regard as unjust: Types and
structures of everyday experiences of injustice. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 20, 133-149.
Miller, B. K., Konopaske, R., & Byrne, Z. S. (2012). Dominance analysis of two
measures of organizational justice. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(3),
264-282.
Miller, S., & Makela, P. (2005). The collectivist approach to collective moral
responsibility. Metaphilosophy, 36(5), 634-651.
Miner, F. (1990). Jealousy on the job. Personnel Journal, 69(8), 88-95.
Ministry of Education Taiwan. (2013, September 23). Education System. Retrieved from
http://english.moe.gov.tw/
Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and workplace deviance
and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92(4), 1159-1168.
Mobley, W. H., Griffeth, R. W., Hand, H. H., & Me glino, B. M. (1979). Review and
154
conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86

(3), 493-522.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845-855.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be
distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4),
475-480.
Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and
counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction.
Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 591-622.
Mulvey, J. (2010, December 8). Frustrated employees perceive injustices at work.
Business News Daily. Retrieved from http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/534
-frustrated-employees-perceive-injustices-at-work-cost-billions.html
Murphy, S. M., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Erdogan, B. (2003). Understanding social
loang: The role of justice perceptions and exchange relationship. Human Relations,
56(1), 61-84.
Muzumdar, P. (2012). Influence of interactional justice on the turnover behavioral
decision in an organization. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, 5, 1-11.
Nadiri, H., & Tanova, C. (2010). An investigation of the role of justice in turnover
intentions, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior in hospitality
industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(1), 33-41.
155
Naidoo, L. J., Scherbaum, C. A., Goldstein, H. W., & Graen, G. B. (2011). A longitudinal
examination of the effects of LMX, ability, and differentiation on team
performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(3), 347-357.
Namkung, Y., Jang, S. S., Almanza, B., & Ismail, J. (2009). Identifying the underlying
structure of perceived service fairness in restaurants. International Journal of
Namie, G. (2003). Workplace bullying: Escalated incivility. Ivey Business Journal, 68(2),
1-7.
Nandedkar, A., & Deshpande, A. (2012). Concurrent engineering, LMX, envy, and
product development cycle time: A theoretical framework. Journal of
Management, 13(5), 144-158.
Olaore, R. A., & Adebisi, N. T. (2013). Accounting, purchasing and supply chain
management interface. Journal of Business and Management, 11(2), 80-84.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Olsen, L. L., & Johnson, M. D. (2003). Service equity, satisfaction, and loyalty: From
transaction-specific to cumulative evaluations. Journal of Service Research, 5(3),
184-195.
Omar, F., Halim, F. W., Zainah, A. Z., & Farhadi, H. (2011). Stress and job satisfaction
as antecedents of workplace deviant behavior. World Applied Sciences Journal, 16,
46-51.
ONeill, J. W., & Xiao, Q. (2010). Effects of organizational/occupational characteristics
156
and personality traits on hotel manager emotional exhaustion. International Journal

of Hospitality Management, 29(4), 652-658.
ONeill, T. A., Lewis, R. J., & Carswell, J. J. (2011). Employee personality, justice
perceptions, and the prediction of workplace deviance. Personality and Individual
Differences, 51(5), 595-600.
gaard, T., Marnburg, E., & Larsen, S. (2008). Perceptions of organizational structure in
the hospitality industry: Consequences for commitment, job satisfaction and
perceived performance. Tourism Management, 29(4), 661-671.
Omar, F., Halim, F. W., Zainah, A. Z., & Farhadi, H. (2011). Stress and job satisfaction
as antecedents of workplace deviant behavior. World Applied Sciences Journal, 16,
46-51.
Parrott, W. G. (1991). The emotional experiences of envy and jealousy. In: Salovey, P.
(Eds.), The Psychology of Jealousy and Envy (pp. 3-30). New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Parrott, W. G., & Smith, R. H. (1993). Distinguishing the experiences of envy and
jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 906-920.
Pelled, L. H., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Down and out: An investigation of the relationship
between and employee withdrawal behavior. Journal of Management, 25(6),
875-895.
Rad, A. M., & Yarmohammadian, M. H. (2006). A study of relationship between
managers leadership style and employees job satisfaction. Leadership and Health
Service, 19(2), 11-28.
157
Raimondo, M. A., Miceli, G. N., & Costabile, M. (2008). How relationship age moderates
loyalty formation: Increasing effect of relational equity on customer loyalty. Journal
of Service Research, 11(2), 142-160.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Renwick, D., & MacNeil, C. M. (2002). Line manager involvement in careers. Career
Development International, 7(7), 407-14.
Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. (2007). Behavioral outcomes of
psychological contract breach in a Non-Western culture: The moderating role of
equity sensitivity. British Journal of Management, 18(4), 376-386.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A
multidimensional scaling study. Academy Of Management Journal, 38(2), 555-572.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1997). Workplace deviance: Its denition, its
manifestations, and its causes. In R. J. Lewicki, R. J. Bies, & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.),
Research on negotiation in organizations (pp. 3-27). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Robinson, S. L, & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not
the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(3), 245-259.
Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 41(4), 574-599.
Rosenbaum, M. (1998). Just say know to teenagers and marijuana. Journal of
Psychoactive Drugs, 30(2), 197-203.
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and
counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy
158
capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 66-80.

Royal, M. (2008, March). The frustrated employee: Help me help you. Hay Group Focus.
Retrieved from http://www.haygroup.com/downloads/ww/misc/frustrated_employee
_4pp_(singles).pdf
Rychlak, J. F. (1973). Introduction to personality and psychotherapy. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Sandmark, H., & Smedberg, A. (2013, February). Stress at Work: Developing a Stress
Management Program in a Web-Based Setting. In eTELEMED 2013, The Fifth
International Conference on eHealth, Telemedicine, and Social Medicine. Nice,
France, 125-128.
Sauley, K. S., & Bedeian, A. G. (2000). Equity sensitivity: Construction of a measure and
examination of its psychometric properties. Journal of Management, 26(5), 885-910.
Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B., & Novak, M. A. (1986). When managers decide not to
decide autocratically: An investigation of leader-member exchange and decision
influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 579-584.
Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). Leader-member exchange and supervisor
career mentoring as complementary constructs in leadership research. Academy of
management Journal, 37(6), 1588-1602.
Schaubroeck, J., & Lam, S. S. (2004). Comparing lots before and after: Promotion
rejectees' invidious reactions to promotees. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 94(1), 33-47.
Schroeder, A. N. (2009). Cultural difference as moderator of perceptions of injustice and
159
workplace deviance. (Master's thesis). Retrieved from http://etd.lib.clemson.edu/

documents/1246559618/Schroeder_clemson_0050M_10139.pdf
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader-member exchange
(LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and
data-analytic practices. Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 63-113.
Schriesheim, C. A., Neider, L. L., & Scandura, T. A. (1998). Delegation and
leader-member exchange: Main effects, moderators, and measurement issues.
Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 298-318.
Schyns, B., Torka, N., & Gossling, T. (2007). Turnover intention and preparedness for
change: Exploring leader-member exchange and occupational self-efcacy as
antecedents of two employability predictors. Career Development International,
12(7), 660-679.
Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. (2002). Relationship quality and relationship
context as antecedents of person- and task-focused interpersonal citizenship
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 255-267.
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden. R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations:
Perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee
reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 219-227.
Shani, A., & Pizam, A. (2009). Work-related depression among hotel employees. Cornell
Hospitality Quarterly, 50(4), 446-459.
Shahzad, A., & Mahmood, Z. (2012). The mediating-moderating model of
organizational cynicism and workplace deviant behavior: (Evidence from banking
160
sector in Pakistan). Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 12(5), 580-588.

Shamsudin, F., Subramaniam, C., & Ibrahim, H. (2011). Investigating the influence of
human resource practices on deviant behavior at work. International Journal of
Trade, Economics, and Finance, 2(6), 514-519.
Shore, T., & Strauss, J. (2008). The political context of employee appraisal: Effects of
organizational goals on performance ratings. International Journal of Management,
25(4), 599-612.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (2005). How can training be used to foster
organizational justice? In J. Greenberg & J.A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of
organizational justice (pp. 499-522). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Skinner, E. A., Edge, K., Altman, J., & Sherwood, H. (2003). Searching for the structure
of coping: a review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of
coping. Psychological bulletin, 129(2), 216-269.
Smith, D. A., & Paternoster, R. (1987). The gender gap in theories of deviance: Issues
and evidence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 24(2), 140-172.
Smith, R. H. (2000). Assimilative and contrastive emotional reactions to upward and
downward social comparisons. In J. Suls L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social
comparison: Theory and research (pp. 173-200). New York, NY: Plenum.
Smith, R. H. (1991). Envy and the sense of injustice. In P. Salovey (Eds.), The
psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 79-99). New York, NY: Guildford Press.
Smith, R. H., Parrott, W. G., Ozer, D., & Moniz, A. (1994). Subjective injustice and
inferiority as predictors of hostile and depressive feelings in envy. Personality and
161
Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(1), 705-711.

Smith, R. H., & Kim, S. H. (2007). Comprehending envy. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1),
46-64.
Sousa-Poza, A., & Henneberger, F. (2004). Analyzing job mobility with job turnover
intentions: An international comparative study. Journal of Economic Issues, 38(1),
113-137.
Sparr, J. L., & Sonnentag, S. (2008). Fairness perceptions of supervisor feedback, LMX,
and employee well-being at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 17(2), 198-225.
Spector, P. E. (1978). Organizational frustration: A model and review of the literature.
Personnel Psychology, 31(4), 815-829.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior:
Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior (CWB) and organizational
citizenship behavior (OCB). Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 269-292.
Sprecher, S. (1986). The relation between inequity and emotions in close
relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 49(4), 309-321.
Stecher, M. D., & Rosse, J. G. (2005). The distributive side of interactional justice: The
effects of interpersonal treatment on emotional arousal. Journal of Managerial
Issues, 16(2), 229-246.
Sturges, J., & Guest, D. (2004). Working to live or living to work? Work/life balance
early in the career. Human Resource Management Journal, 14(4), 5-20.
Susskind, A. M., Kacmar, K. M., & Borchgrevink, C. P. (2003). Customer service
162
providers attitudes relating to customer service and customer satisfaction in the

customer-server exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 179-187.
Susskind, A. M., Kacmar, M. K., & Borchgrevink, C. P. (2007). How organizational
standards and coworker support improved restaurant service. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 370-379.
Tai, K., Narayanan, J., & McAllister, D. J. (2012). Envy as pain: Rethinking the nature
of envy and its implications for employees and organizations. Academy of
Tang, T., & Tang, Y. (2012). Promoting service-oriented organizational citizenship
behaviors in hotels: The role of high-performance human resource practices and
organizational social climates. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
31(3), 885-895.
Tangirala, S., Green, S. G., & Ramanujam, R. (2007). In the shadow of the boss's boss:
Effects of supervisors' upward exchange relationships on employees. Journal of
Taylor, S. G., Bedeian, A. G., & Kluemper, D. H. (2012). Linking workplace incivility to
citizenship performance: The combined effects of affective commitment and
conscientiousness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(7), 878-893.
Taylor, S. G., Kluemper, D. H., & Sauley, K. S. (2009). Equity sensitivity revisited:
Contrasting unidimensional and multidimensional approaches. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 24(3), 299-314.
Telly, C. S., French, W. L., & Scott, W. G. (1971) The relationship of inequity to turnover
163
among hourly workers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(2), 164-171.

Tourism Bureau, Republic of China. (2013, July). List of hotels. http://t-hotel.tbroc.gov.
tw/roster/List.asp
Trevor, C. O. (2001). Interactions among actual ease-of-movement determinants and job
satisfaction in the prediction of voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal,
44(4), 621-638.
Tse, H. H., & Troth, A. C. (2013). Perceptions and emotional experiences in differential
supervisor-subordinate relationships. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 34(3), 271-283.
Uen, J., Wu, T., Teng, H., & Liu, Y. (2012). Transformational leadership and branding
behavior in Taiwanese hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 24(1), 26-43.
United States Department of Labor. (2013, January). Minimum wage. Retrieved from
http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/minimumwage.htm
Van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2011). Why envy outperforms
admiration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(6), 784-795.
Van Vianen, A. E., Shen, C. T., & Chuang, A. (2011). Personorganization and
personsupervisor fits: Employee commitments in a Chinese context. Journal of
Vecchio, R. P. (2000). Negative emotion in the workplace: Employee jealousy and envy.
International Journal of Stress Management, 7(3), 161-179.
Vecchio, R. P. (1995). It's not easy being green: jealous and envy in the workplace. In G. R.
164
Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management, (Vol. 13, pp.
201-244). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Vidaillet, B. (2007). Lacanian theory's contribution to the study of workplace
envy. Human Relations, 60(11), 1669-1700.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2002). Examining the construct of organizational justice:
A meta-analytic evaluation of relations with work attitudes and behaviors.
Journal of Business Ethics, 38(3), 193-203.
Volmer, J., Niessen, C., Spurk, D., Linz, A., & Abele, A. E. (2011). Reciprocal
relationships between leadermember exchange (LMX) and job satisfaction: A
cross-lagged analysis. Applied Psychology, 60(4), 522-545.
Waldman, J. D., Kelly, F., Arora, S., & Smith, H. L. (2004). The shocking cost of turnover
in health care. Health Care Management Review, 29(1), 2-7.
Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leadermember
exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and
followers' performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of
Management Journal, 48(3), 420-432.
Wang, P., & Dai, Q. (2011). A survey of social support and coping style in middle
school female teachers in China. Creative Education, 2(3), 220-225.
Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993). The effects of leader-member exchange on
employee citizenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations,
165
46(12), 1431-1440.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and
leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management
journal, 40(1), 82-111.
Weaver, S. G., & Yancey, G. B. (2010). The impact of dark leadership on
organizational commitment and turnover. Leadership Review, 10, 104-124.
Webster, T., & Bergman, B. (1999). Occupational stress: Counts and rates. Compensation
and Working Conditions, 4(3), 38-41.
Welbourne, J. L., Eggerth, D., Hartley, T. A., Andrew, M. E., & Sanchez, F. (2007).
Coping strategies in the workplace: Relationships with attributional style and job
satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70(2), 312-325.
Wheeler, K. G. (2002). Cultural values in relation to equity sensitivity within and across
cultures. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(7), 612-627.
Wert, S. R., & Salovey, P. (2004). A social comparison account of gossip. Review of
General Psychology, 8(2), 122.
White, A. (2011, March 20). Part time hours vs full time hours. Snagajob. Retrived from
http://www.snagajob.com/resources/part-time-vs-full-time-hours
Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology.
Psychological bulletin, 90(2), 245.
Xu, E., Huang, X., Lam, C. K., & Miao, Q. (2012). Abusive supervision and work
behaviors: The mediating role of LMX. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(4),
531-543.
166
Yang, J., Wan, C., & Fu, Y. (2012). Qualitative examination of employee turnover and
retention strategies in international tourist hotels in Taiwan. International Journal of
Young, C. A., & Corsun, D. A. (2009). What a nuisance: Controlling for negative
affectivity versus personality in hospitality stress research. International Journal of
Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

The Effect of Perceived Unfairness and Negative Emotions On Workplace Behavior

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Effect of Perceived Unfairness and Negative Emotions On Workplace Behavior

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

THE EFFECT OF PERCEIVED UNFAIRNESS AND NEGATIVE EMOTIONS

A thesis submitted to the

__________________________, Director, Master's Thesis Committee

Yu Ya Ling, M.S. December, 2013

THE EFFECT OF PERCEIVED UNFAIRNESS AND NEGATIVE EMOTIONS ON

patience and encouragement motivated and empowered me to concentrate on this

discussed results, and provided journals).

She also aroused my potential to go farther

Her professional knowledge base was critical to making

my research study a success.

Without their help with data distribution and collection it would be

difficult to complete this study.

Their never-ending support and encouragement is what

motivates and empowers me to keep me going.

1. Conceptual framework .................................................................................................. 28

1. Demographic Characteristics of Taiwanese and American Hotel Employees ............. 37

15. Summary of Simple Linear Regression Analysis for the Prediction of

31. Gender Differences on Seven Variables of American Hotel Employees ................... 63

However, not all employees may

Hotel industry is different from other industry

Baumeister and Leary (1995)

All employees have different

Employees with negative emotions are more prone to lower

are more likely to make employees engage in workplace deviant behaviors

It is still a serious problem existing in the workplace nowadays (Bolin

& Heatherly, 2001).

Deviant behaviors may accompany with negative work attitude,

such as job satisfaction and reduced working enthusiasm.

In the hospitality industry, if

In order to avoid service failure, it is

important to discourage deviant behavior from occurring during a customer encounter.

Some employees produce deviance and other employees intend to

leave the organization.

Hinkin and Tracey (2000) suggested "A

In the hospitality industry, employees have higher turnover

Hotel owners use

The relationship between supervisors and employees is

Once their envy

The purposes of this research are to explore (1) if

turnover intention; (6) if demographic characteristics and background information would

In addition, organizations that provide benefits, such

Taylor, Bedeian, and Kluemper (2012) described how negative

reciprocity associated with workplace incivility (e.g., impolite or insulting behavior to

LMEX is regarding the relationship between

In contrast, this research examined how the

relationship between supervisors and employees (LMEX) influences the relationship

If the supervisor does not treat the employees well,

The most important mission for hotel employees is serving the

Oliver (1997) defined equity as a fairness, rightness, or

deservingness comparison to other entities, whether real or imaginary, individual or

Equity theory is associated with social

Thus, employees who perform well

Ladebo et al. (2008)

Interactional justice may be a

Colquitt et al., 2001; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Robinson, 1996).

In the other words,

Ladebo et al. (2008)

demonstrated that perceived unfairness from the supervisor could be appraised as

If employees do not perceive the equitable interaction or

Likewise, employees strive to apply

Limited research has focused on

Regarding the turnover intention, the research has shown that

Collins (2010) found